






;:,'tHr^'-'ii;r:;K 



»<>■■!"■•! ''l-i' !:!;•'■« I):' ^'^'^\^''\',-]'- 

;;<•UHl!!hl;i!intih:;:!.>':i^^;'i'i;:•:,:■^^:-: / 
^''^!i:i!i!'<t'':!!!!'•H!;'i';;;;l^i';ii;i;:^";:.,.:i••; ■ 



,.<^- 



x*"^ 













>^ .0^" 




■'^. 










.\ - ■■ ' 


« ^ 


-7 


■^o 


0^ 




'', ''^^ -* 








^-■^ 


-/, 


















,/o..->c/' 


H ' 


s) 










-f* 










% 


^,., . .... . 


'^'^V 

^ 


^^^ 










•^^. . 
■%" 


'./ 


^>. 










'. ''b 




if 


' ^ 






•^^-^^ - 






^ 





















.,^^'' ^*- 
* **•. 








X'.^' 






' 


^^^ 


<i^- 


* 


=^3 ' .. . 




^^ 


./ 


■?"■ 






-^^ 












" ^ 

?-?. "» 


^O 




C^' 










-^o 


0^ 










' - * s ^ 






t- 








iN 







"'^.- c^^ 








'^- '0, ">-'"' ,C^^\-" r„\. 






V- .^v -^ c,- -■ , v. .^X 



" - .^ >> 






ESSAYS 



ROMANISM 



BY THE AUTHOR OF ESSAYS ON THE CHURCH 



/ 
It 



1 



FIRST AMERICAN EDITION. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OP PUBLICATION 

JaMES RUSSELL, PUBLISHING AGENT. 

1841. 



.34 



/7&S' 



3 
S4I 



/^/^C^ 

/^y^ 



Printed by 

WILLIAM S. MARTIEN. 



CONTENTS 



Introduction. - .... .9 

I. On thk Rule of Faith. — The necessity of an infallible guide 

in our search after divine truth, - - - - 13 

II. On the Rule of Faith.— The Romish Church not the Catho- 
lic Church, 33 

III. On the Rule of Faith.— The Romish Rule of Faith exa- 

mined, - - - - - - - 49 

IV, The Marks of the True Church. — Unity, - .76 

V. The Marks of the True Church. — ^The Sanctity of the 

Church of Rome, 88 

VI. The Marks of the True Church. — Catholicity, • - 116 

VII. The Marks of the True Church.— Apostolicity, - - 126 

VIII. The Supremacy of the Pope, - - - - 135 

IX. The Rule of Faith.— Recapitulation of the argument, - 167 

X. The Rule of Faith— "Holy Scripture," or "The Church," 182 

XI. The Protestant Rule of Faith. — The genuineness and 

authenticity of the Holy Scriptures, - - - 208 

XII. The Protestant Rule of Faith.— The Divine Inspiration 

of the Scriptures, - - - - - - 228 

XIII. The Two Rules of Faith.— The Scriptures, or "The 

Church," 246 



8 CONTENTS. 

XIV. Infallibility.— On the alleged necessity for an infallible 

church, ....... 264 



XV. The Idolatry of Romanism.— The Invocation of Saints, 276 

XVI. The Idolatry of Romanism.— Idolatrous Worship, - - 305 

XVII. Romish Doctrines and Practices.— Transubstantiation, 320 

XVIII. Romish Doctrines and Practices. — ^The Mass, - - 344 

XIX. Romish Doctrines and Practices. — The Pardon of Sin ; 

Purgatory; and Indulgences, .... 363 

XX. Romish Doctrines and Practices.— Persecution, - - 380 

XXI. Destiny of Romanism. — The Prophecies concerning the 

Papacy, - - - - ... 397 



INTRODUCTION 



The compiler of the present volume cannot ven- 
ture to offer it to the Christian public without a 
few words of explanation, expressive both of 
his sense of its many deficiencies, and of some 
of the causes which have occasioned them. 

These deficiencies might be divided into two 
classes: — those which have been intentional, 
and those which are involuntary. 

Probably, however, the chief among them 
may be reckoned to belong to both. The re- 
ferences to what is called "antiquity," will be 
found to be few. In this respect there was an 
equal w^ant of leisure for research, and of dis- 
position to make such research, even had time 
been more attainable. 

An opinion is now very industriously circu- 
lated, that it is only by an appeal to "antiquity," 



10 



INTRODTJOTION 



or " tradition," that Romanism can be effectu- 
ally refuted. 

The compiler has good reason for believing 
that none are more anxious for the spread of 
such an opinion, than the Romanists themselves. 
Nor is he at all surprised at this. His own 
conviction, not hastily formed, is, that the Ro- 
mish controversialist who can succeed in draw- 
ing his opponent away from the inspired oracles, 
and in resting the discussion chiefly upon the 
sayings or doings of councils or fathers, has 
already achieved more than half a victory, and 
is at least secure against defeat. The w^orst 
that can happen to him is, the closing the dis- 
cussion by a drawn battle. 

From this conviction, the compiler of the pre- 
sent volume has generally declined to make any 
other use of the writers of the earlier centu- 
ries, than to show, by brief references to their 
writings, that it was as easy to quote them on 
one side as on the other. Such he believes to 
be the case ; and he behoves, also, that this lat- 
ter " confusion of tongues" has been as wisely 
ordered as was that of Babel. The descendants 
of Noah proposed to themselves to make such 



INTRODUCTION. 11 

a provision, as should render them, in any future 
deluge, independent of divine assistance. Exactly 
similar is the attempt now making, to raise such 
a pile of human authorities, as may enable its 
architects to dispense with the word of God, as 
completely as they of old proposed to dispense 
wdth any future ark. The attempt is equally 
presumptuous, and its result will equally frus- 
trate the expectations of its authors. 

In this respect, therefore, whatever may be 
the short-comings of the present volume, its 
compiler will not attempt to shelter himself un- 
der the plea of want of leisure. His neglect 
has been as much a matter of choice as of 
necessity. In many other respects the case is 
different. The distraction of a variety of dis- 
similar and conflicting engagements and avoca- 
tions, besides personal and innate disqualifica- 
tions of which no one can be better aware than 
himself, will have left their traces in many 
errors, weaknesses, and failures. Of all these, 
the puny and faultful instrument must, without 
repining, bear the blame. But amidst the whole, 
he is yet conscious that it is in the power of 
the All-wise to use even such an effort as this 



12 INTRODUCTION, 

to some good purpose. And he would most of 
all desire, that should such -be the case, the 
praise and glory may be ascribed to Him alone, 
to whose gracious operation all such results 
will be solely attributable. 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM. 



I._ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 

THE NECESSITY OF AN INFALLIBLE GUIDE, IN OUR SEARCH 
AFTER DIVINE TRUTH. 

There is one remark which seems to Dr. Milner, the 
Romish controversialist, to be of such weight, that in 
his work entitled, " The End of Religious Con- 
troversy,''^ he introduces it again and again, even to 
the extent of three or four repetitions. It is this : — 

" There are, I beUeve, few of our CathoHc priests 
in an extensive ministry, who have not frequently 
been called in to receive dying Protestants into the 
Catholic church, while not a single instance can be 
produced, of a Catholic wishing to die in any other 
communion than his own. death, thou great 
enlightener ! truth-telUng death, how powerful 
art thou in confuting the blasphemies, and dissipating 
the prejudices of the enemies of God's church !'' 

Now though in this statement there is a degree of 
exaggeration, since individual cases have assuredly 
occurred, of persons forsaking the Rpmish faith on 
their dying beds, still, in the main, it is probably cor- 
rect. In fact, at first sight, one hardly understands 
why the Papists should make it a matter of boasting, 
that while those who have left their communion for 
the Protestant faith, generally did it in the full posses- 
sion of their health and faculties, deliberately, and in 
no haste or alarm ; those, on the other hand, who 
have abandoned Protestantism for their more conve- 

2 



14 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

nient creed, have for the most part taken that step in 
the confusion, alarm, and perhaps delirium of a dying 
hour. But the closing exclamation shows us the 
ground of the Papist's exultation. Death, he says, 
is the great enlightener, the great truth-teller, and 
his verdict shows that the Protestant faith is often 
felt to be one on which it is unsafe to venture into 
the presence of the Eternal Judge. The conclusion 
which it*is intended every Protestant should apply 
to his own case, would evidently suggest a doubt, 
whether he himself will find it, in his last hour, a 
sound and satisfactory support. 

Yet is there not something in this Romish exulta- 
tion, which may remind us of the opening chapters 
of the book of Job ? Might not Satan, were he now 
allowed "to present himself" at intervals before the 
Lord, often venture on a similar attempt at self- 
gratulation? 

Were the Prince of Darkness thus permitted to 
address the Lord of life and glory, he might proceed 
in just such a line of observation: " How much more 
natural, how much more voluntarily paid, is the 
homage and obedience rendered me by my subjects, 
than that accorded to you by yours. Not only does 
the far larger portion of the earth still acknowledge 
my supremacy, but the service of the myriads of my 
worshippers, is a willing and ready service. On the 
other hand, among those who profess to yield you 
obedience, at least four-fifths, in their hearts, would 
prefer my rule. What multitudes are there, who 
spend their lives in feigned adherence to your power, 
but who, on their death-beds, are clearly seen to have 
been, in fact, my subjects rather than yours, and to 
belong, as such, to my countless muster-roll below." 

Such might be Satan's boast; and a boast, too, 
quite as well founded as that just quoted from the 
Romish divine. But although the fact alluded to by 
Dr. Milneris of too fearful a cast to seem well adapt- 
ed for a controversial tract, still, as it is adduced, and 
adduced with more than usual emphasis, it may be as 
^ well not to rest content with showing how it might be 



ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 15 

paralleled, but rather to give also what appears to be 
the only true explanation. 

It will doubtless not unseldom occur, in a country 
like this, with twelve or fourteen millions of people, 
brought up in a nominal profession of Protestantism, 
myriads of whom, however, never hear even the 
slightest attempt at. an explanation of the name, — 
that individuals drawing near to death, without any 
previous expectation of, or preparation for it, and 
overwhelmed with an alarm which makes them fly 
in turn to every conceivable refuge or resource, — 
shall sometimes, among other expedients, fall upon, 
that of a sudden conversion to Popery. These per- 
sons may, for the most part, be classed under two 
heads, as to their previous circumstances and cases ; 
but their motive for embracing Romanism is one and 
the same ; to wit, a direful certainty to which they 
have just awakened, that the sort of rehgion they 
have heretofore followed will not yield them peace 
in a dying hour; and an eager flying to Popery, as 
a creed which holds out strong and positive assur- 
ances, that a certainty of safety belongs to all who 
truly profess it. 

The two classes alluded to, are, 1. The Careless, 
and, 2. the PharisaicaL The first have been follow- 
ing, all their days, "the lust of the flesh, the lust of 
the eye, and the pride of life ;" and now death seizes 
upon them unawares, and they are filled with terror. 
The second have been aiming to live a religious life, 
and have been expecting that that religious life, con- 
sisting of sundry prayers, and fastings, and church- 
goings, and alms-givings, would bring them peace at 
the last, although He who is the only Peace-maker 
between God and man, has scarcely filled even a sec- 
ondary place in their devotions. But now eternity 
opens to their view; their religious life begins to 
weigh lighter and lighter in their estimation, when 
balanced against the demands of God's pure and holy 
law; and they too, as well as the careless, are filled 
with alarm. 

To either class the message of the Protestant min- 



16 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



ister is the same. He has no passport to heaven to 
give or to sell them. He stands by their bed-side a 
poor helpless sinner like themselves, and he has but 
one word suited to their case. That word is, "^e- 
hold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of 
the ivorldP^ 

But constant experience proves that there is no re- 
fuge which human nature, even in its greatest alarm, 
will not prefer to this. And if, in this moment of 
doubt and dismay. Popery comes in with her vast 
pretensions, and tells the frightened sinner, "Behold 
the TRUE CHURCH, ow^ ofwMchyou cannot be saved, 
and in which you cannot be lost; here is extreme 
unction for your body; a new sacrifice of Christ's ac- 
tual body to be again,^.this very moment, offered up for 
your soul; here is an infinite treasury of merit in the 
possession of the church, part of which, by alms- 
giving, you may procure to be set to your account; 
and here are prayers both of saints above and saints 
below, all which the church can apply for your rescue 
from the purifying fires of purgatory," — we say, who 
shall wonder that with all these magnificent offers 
pressed upon her acceptance, poor human nature, ex- 
cept omnipotent grace commands a rescue, turns from 
the simple call to faith in a Saviour, and eagerly 
embraces the tempting offers of the universal de- 
ceiver?* 

The clenching argument, however, with the hesita- 
ting mind, in such a case as this, is that which we 
are now about to consider. The Protestant minister 
pretends to no infallibility, either in himself or in his 
church. He offers, as the alone guide, the word of 
God — the Bible. But the poor creature before him 
has, perhaps, and knows that he has, but a few hours 
to live, and despairs of understanding such a volume 
in that short space; while to receive the wonderful 
message, ^^ Believe and thy sins shall be blotted out, ^^ 
seems impossible without some stronger assuranceof 
its truth. 

» Rev. xviii. 23. 



ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 



17 



The Romish priest, on the other hand, if he claims 
not infallibility for himself, boldly and strenuously 
asserts it as the attribute of his church. In the words 
of Dr. Milner, he declares that " the Catholic church 
is the divinely commissioned guardian and interpret- 
er of the word of God; and that, therefore, the meth- 
od appointed by Christ for learning what he has 
taught, on the various articles of his religion, is to 
hear the church propounding them." "This meth- 
od," he proceeds, "is the only one which leads to the 
peace and unity of the Christian church, and the only 
one which affords tranquillity and security to individ- 
ual Christians during life, and at the trying hour of 
their dissolution."* "Thus you have only to hear 
what the church teaches upon the several articles of 
her faith, in order to know with certainty what God 
has revealed concerning them."t 

It is this conclusive assumption, this assertion of 
a fact which the poor man has neither time nor 
strength to dispute, and which, 2y/?^we, makes all safe, 
and assures him of salvation, that mainly tends to 
these death-bed conversions, as it does, also, to most 
of those which occur in health, and after calmer con- 
sideration. And, as it evidently lies at the very foun- 
dation of the whole argument, cutting the ground it- 
self, if it be true, from under Protestantism, it seems 
both expedient, and in fact necessary, to commence 
any discussion on the doctrines and pretensions of Ro- 
manism, at this preliminary point. 

But in what way shall the inquiry be conducted? 
It seems to us that the most intelligible and practical 
course will be to individualize , if we may so call it, 
the investigation; by imagining, not an abstract ar- 
gument, but a real inquirer. 

Our readers and writers on Popery, in this country, 
are too often either vehement opponents from their 
very birth, or else men who, from their ultra views of 
churchmanship, are favourably disposed towards Po- 
pery. In either of these cases the cause has been 

* End of Controv. p. 536. t Ibid p. 173. 



18 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM 



virtually decided before a word of the argument has 
been heard. But the more honest seeker after truth 
will not contend for victory, but will look for satis- 
faction. We can have no difficulty in picturing to 
ourselves such an one. Take the man whose life has 
been spent in various parts of the world, whether in 
commercial pursuits, or in the service of his country. 
He has lived among all religions, and yet has, from 
that very circumstance, attached himself to none. 
Various warnings suggest to him the shortness and 
uncertainty of life, and he feels that, as yet, all be- 
yond the present scene is a matter of dread uncer- 
tainty. He therefore begins to inquire, in earnest, 
which is the way of salvation. But here he is beset 
by the various claims of the various churches and 
sects, and feels bewildered amidst the different schemes 
which are presented to his notice. 

Thus far, however, he has advanced, and that so 
carefully as to be thoroughly settled in the convic- 
tion, — That it is wholly absurd and irrational to sup- 
pose that the world or its inhabitants came into exis- 
tence by chance, or that the human race originated 
itself: That the Creator of the visible universe must 
be a being of inconceivable power, wisdom, and be- 
nevolence, and that it is most improbable that, having 
made mankind, he would cast them loose to follow 
their own devices, without any further care about 
their fate or their conduct : That something within 
warns him of the existence of a principle, which the 
sleep of the body does not cause to slumber, and 
which it is not conceivable that the dissolution of the 
body will destroy: That a secret consciousness of the 
difference between good and evil, and an impression 
of a future retribution, connected with the previous 
observations, convince him of the great probability, 
at least, of an hereafter; in which he will have to 
know the Author of his being, and, what is still more 
important, will be called to account by him for all the 
actions of his life. 

But this train of thought carries him forward, at 
once, to the most interesting question which can 



ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 19 

possibly present itself to the human mind, namely, on 
the supposition that there is an hereafter, and possibly 
9, judgment at the very commencement of that here- 
after; how shall a human being prepare himself for 
that awful scrutiny? By what rule, according to 
what directory shall he regulate his conduct, or frame 
his plea? How shall he learn the character and re- 
quirements of his judge, and the best mode in which 
to approach his presence and propitiate his favour? 
Nothing can exceed the essential importance of these 
questions, or the interest which they are calculated to 
awaken in the mind of the serious and earnest seeker 
after truth. 

Now the answer of a Protestant to these inquiries 
will be both simple and straightforward. He will 
say,— 

"For my own part, I must confess myself a poor, 
fallible, erring human creature like yourself; and 
when I speak to you of the concerns of God and 
eternity, I dare not give you any surmises or notions 
of my own, or any views or principles learnt of other 
human beings. But I am able to refer you to a guide 
which cannot mislead or misinform you, to a book, 
in short, which has been given to man by that very 
God before whose judgment-seat we must all stand, 
as the guide and directory, both of his belief and of 
his practice. Knowing it to be his gift, and bestowed 
upon man for this very object, I dare not direct your 
view to any inferior source of knowledge. 

" Nor is it necessary. For in the Bible, and there 
alone, we find ^shallows in which a lamb may wade, 
and yet at the same time, depths in which an elephant 
may swim.' There alone, we find ' truth without 
any mixture of error,' and ' certainty without any 
alloy of doubt." 

But the moment this reply is given, we may assure 
ourselves of the instant and total oppositon of the 
Romish party. An open and unshackled Bible, 
exalted, too, to be the sole judge and arbiter in all 
matters relating to our faith, — cannot co-exist with 
Romanism. And thus it happens, that in one shape 



20 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



or other, either open or covert warfare is constantly 
waged against the Bible by the votaries of Rome. 

In the palmy days of the apostate church, her 
mandates against the use of the Scriptures were issued 
without the least disguise or qualification. " We 
strictly forbid,'' says the council of Toulouse, " the 
laity to have the books of the Old and New Testa- 
ment in the vulgar tongue." " If any one shall pre- 
sume to read or possess them," says the council of 
Trent, " without permission of his priest or confessor, 
in writing, he shall not receive absolution of his sins, 
except he first deliver them up."* And in like 
manner, at the present day, in Spain, Italy, or other 
Popish countries, copies of the Scriptures, if disco- 
vered by the police, are seized and destroyed, as 
contraband or unlawful articles. 

In the midst of a Protestant population, however, 
and in a land where pretensions of this kind would 
be instantly spurned, Popery alters its tone. Here 
no objection is offered to the use of the Scriptures, but 
only to their paramount authority. " The Catholic 
rule of faith," says Dr. Milner, "is not merely the 
written word of God, but the whole word of God, 
both ivritten or unwritten; in other words, scripture 
and tradition, and these propounded and explained 
by the Catholic church. This implies that we have a 
two-fold rule or law, and that we have an interpreter 
or judge to explain it, and to decide upon it in all 
doubtful points."t 

This device, however, only differs from open war- 
fare with the Bible, in its greater insidiousness. To 
put Scripture wholly out of sight, is, perhaps, the 
simplest and most effectual course; but, when this 
cannot be attempted, it answers nearly the same pur- 
pose to reduce the written word into subjection to the 
church's decisions. Chillingworth has well said, that 
"He that would usurp an absolute lordship and 
tyranny over any people, need not put himself to the 

* De libris prohibitis. reg. iv. 

t Milner's End of Controversy, page 116. 



ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 



21 



trouble and difficulty of abrogating and disannulling 
the laws made to maintain the common liberty; for 
he may frustrate their intent, and compass his own 
design as well, if he can get the power and authority 
to interpret them as he pleases, and to have his 
interpretations and additions stand for laws; if he can 
rule his people by his laws, and his laws by his 
lawyers. So the church of Rome, to establish her 
tyranny over men's consciences, needed not either to 
abolish or corrupt the Holy Scriptures, the pillars and 
supporters of Christian liberty. But the more expe- 
dite way, and therefore the more likely to be the 
successful, was to gain the opinion and esteem of 
being the public and authorized interpreter of them, 
and the authority of adding to them what doctrine 
she pleased, under the title of traditions or defini- 
tions. For by this means, she might both serve 
herself of all those clauses of Scripture which might 
be drawn to cast a favourable countenance upon her 
ambitious pretences, — which, had the Scriptures been 
abolished, she could not have done ; and yet be secure 
enough of having neither her power limited, nor her 
corruptions and abuses reformed by them; this being 
once settled in the minds of men, that unwritten doc- 
trines, if proposed by her, were to be received with 
equal reverence to those that were written ; and that 
the sense of Scripture was not that which it seemed 
to reason and understanding to be, but that which the 
church of Rome should declare it, though it seem 
never so unreasonable and incongruous.''* 

But we are often met, in this stage of the argument, 
by assertions of the expediency and even the absolute 
necesssity of some authoritative interpreter. A very 
fallacious analogy is introduced, between divine and 
human legislation. Dr. Milner remarks that " in this 
kingdom we have the common or unwritten lawj 
and the statute or written law, both of them binding, 
but the former necessarily preceding the latter."! 

Nothing, however, can be more irrational, or more 

* Chill ingworths' Works, fol. p. 40. + End of Controversy, p. 117. 



22 



ESSAYS ON eomanism: 



presumptuous, than this method of prescribing a cer- 
tain course as a fit and necessary one to be taken by 
the all-wise Creator, merely because some of his 
short-sighted creatures have found it needful under 
their perpetual errors and imperfections. Two rea- 
sons may be adduced for the existence and validity of 
our common or unwritten law ; — 1. The imperfection 
attending all man's works, which makes it impossible 
for any parliament to construct a perfect code, and 
thus renders the rectifying hand of the judges often 
needful. 2. The fact, that we had judges in England 
centuries before we had parliaments, from which it 
naturally followed that their decisions, recorded and 
handed down, became a sort of code, long before acts 
of parliament came into use among us. But neither 
of these reasons applies in the least to the dealings of 
God with his creatures; nor can any rational ground 
be assigned, why that divine Being who has vouch- 
safed us a revelation of His mind and will in the 
Scriptures, should have left it in such obscurity as to 
need the perpetual interpretations of a number of 
human creatures like ourselves ; still less, that He 
should have purposely kept back half of that reve- 
lation, in order to entrust it to a mere viva voce 
preservation, under the name of tradition. 

The next objection waxes bolder, and adopts a tone 
which is almost profane. It runs thus, '^ Jesus Christ 
wrote no part of the New Testament himself, and 
gave no orders to his apostles to write it, nor did he 
intend it to be, together with the Old Testament, the 
sole rule of religion."* " The Almighty did not send 
a book, the New Testament, to Christians, and with- 
out so much as establishing the authority of that book, 
leave them to interpret it, till the end of time, each 
one according to his own opinions or prejudices. But 
our blessed Master and Legislator, Jesus Christ, 
having first established his own divine legation from 
his heavenly Father by undeniable miracles, com- 
missioned his chosen apostles, hy word of mouth, to 

* End of Controversy, p. 97. 



ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 



23 



proclaim and explain, hy loord of mouthy his doctrines 
and precepts unto all nations, promising to be with 
them even to the end of the world."* 

Now, not to dwell upon the indecency of this lan- 
guage, its assertions are essentially untrue. If Christ 
'''gave no orders to his apostles to write the new Tes- 
tament," he did more; he sent down the Holy Spirit, 
who in discharge of his office, of bearing witness of 
the Saviour, inspired the apostles and evangelists to 
write these books. And by divers signs and won- 
ders, wrought before all the people, he did most fully 
establish the authority of those writings and of their 
authors. It is little short, then, of playing the infi- 
del, — to make light of the only book which God has 
given us, to teach us the knowledge of himself, and 
to describe it as scarcely more than a fortuitous col- 
lection of ancient writings. 

An appeal to the Fathers, which generally follows, 
is less objectionable on the score of presumption. 
Dr. Milner, to establish the equality of tradition with 
scripture, quotes Basil and Epiphanius. The former 
says — "There are many doctrines preserved and 
preached in the church, derived partly from written 
documents, partly from apostolical tradition, which 
have equally the same force in religion, and which 
no one contradicts who has the least knowledge of 
the Christian laws." And the last, "We must make 
use of tradition; for all things are not to be found in 
scripture."! 

But he who seeks to establish any great principle 
by a reference to the fathers, "seeks for the living 
among the dead." There is scarcely any position in 
theology, whether true or false, which may not easily 
be supported by quotations from some one or more 
of their number. But the folly of relying on them 
consists in this, that it is just as easy to find passages 
which make for one side of a question as for the 
other. And by this we may learn the uncertainty and 
contrariety of what is called tradition, and the im- 

* End of Controversy, p. 118. t End of Controversy, p. 127. 



24 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM; 



possibility of finding any sure resting place, save in 
the word of God. Against the words of Basil and 
Epiphanius, we may place those of Justin Martyr and 
Jerome. Justin says, " If we will be safe in all things 
we must fly to the Scriptures, we must beUeve God 
only, and rest solely on his institutions, and 7iot on 
mtii's traditions^* Jerome says, "Whereas Paul 
will have his own things to be kept, he will have no 
strange things added to them.^^\ Thus it is quickly 
seen, that if we refer any question to the judgment 
of the fathers, we are likely to get into a chaos of dif- 
fering opinions, but with little chance of arriving at 
a final verdict. On the real value of what is called 
*' Tradition," a late Romanist author, the Rev. D. 
O'Croly, lately parish priest of Ovens, near Cork, has 
written very sensibly. He says: 

"Tradition, about which so much has been said and 
written, is a mere nonentity in religion. It is called 
the unwritten word, and may be denominated a sort 
of supplement to the New Testament. It is^supposed 
to be a portion of revelation, which was not com- 
mitted to writing, but continues to be delivered orally 
as at first; and has been transmitted in this manner 
from age to age, down to the present time. Now the 
great point to ascertain is, what this traditionary reve- 
lation contains, what dogmata it teaches; what pre- 
cepts it inculcates; what particular maxims it recom- 
mends in contradistinction to the written word, or to 
the writings of the evangelists and apostles in the 
New Testament? Has the church, at any time du- 
ring the eighteen centuries of her existence, placed 
before the world in a tangible shape, or in due form, 
this grand section of the revealed word? Has she 
ever ventured to define it either in whole or in part? 
She has done nothing of the kind. The apostles and 
evangelists did not mark it down; the first fathers 
followed the example of the apostles and evangel- 
ists, they slurred it over; their successors in like man- 
ner, passed it heedlessly by; councils that were as- 

* Dial. cum. Trypho. f On 2 Thessalonians. 



ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 25 

sembled of every description, general and particular, 
took no notice of it, and thus has it travelled down to 
our days without shape or form, — a sort of spiritual 
essence, unheeded, unperceived, untouched, unde- 
fined, and undefinable ; and this is to form an essen- 
tial part of religion! Tradition is a mere figment, an 
empty name."* 

Let us now, however, try to get a little closer to the 
practical question, and to ascertain, if possible, how the 
Romish rule of faith can be made actually availa- 
ble. 

The Protestant offers something which is at least 
intelligible. He presents the written word of God, 
and avows his belief, that in that volume is contained 
all that is <^ necessary to salvation," so that " whatso- 
ever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, 
is not to be required of any man, that it should be be- 
lieved as an article of faith." 

The Romanist, not daring, in this Protestant coun- 
try, to repudiate the Holy Scriptures, admits their au- 
thority and their value, but declares that an authori- 
tative interpreter of their meaning is absolutely ne- 
cessary, and that that interpreter, properly commis- 
sioned, is only to be found in his church. His rule of 
faith, therefore, is, Scripture and tradition conjointly; 
or. Scripture as interpretedby the church. 

Instantly, then, the question suggests itself to a 
plain man, honestly seeking after truth; — "Where is 
this Scripture and tradition conjoined" to be found ? 
or where is that authoritative interpretation of the 
Scripture, which the church is said to be divinely com- 
missioned to give? 

Dr. Milner's main direction, to all seekers after sal- 
vation, is, to '^ hear the church, the divinely commis- 
sioned guardian and interpreter of the word of 
God." t " No sooner," says he, " will you have sa- 
crificed your own waveringjudgment, and have sub- 
mitted to follow the guide whom your heavenly Fa- 
ther has provided for you, than you will feel a deep 

*0'Croly's Inquiry, p. 41. t End of Controversy, p. 536. 



26 



ESSAYS ON EOMANISM I 



conviction that you are in the right and secure 
way."* 

The question, then, is, How is the inquirer to 
"hear the church," and to submit to the guide thus 
divinely provided? We shall not be told, that by 
merely joining the communion of the church, and 
submitting ourselves to her authority, we thereby be- 
come perfectly safe for time and eternity. This will 
hardly be insisted on, for every one must have become 
acquainted with persons who were devout and even 
servile followers of the religious ceremonies and re- 
quirements of the Romish church, and who were yet 
far from leading such lives as to encourage any one 
to consider them secure of heaven. 

Hence it is clear, that to become a Roman Catholic 
does not of itself give the inquirer that which he 
needs, perfect security, and an assurance that he is 
secure. Thus he is driven once more to ask, Which 
is the safe, the unerring way, to the discovery of reli- 
gious truth ? If he is not to rely upon the Scriptures — 
and these he is told will mislead him— on what is he 
to rely? He is told that he must "hear the church ;" 
but where, he begs to know, is he to hear her? Does 
she speak through her ministers, and can he be sure 
that each of these ministers is so far divinely preserved 
from error, as to be actually incapable oi misleading 
him? Only assure him of this, and he will feel that 
a great point is gained. He will then have reached a 
height from which all the important truths connected 
with salvation will be clearly discernible. 

No such pretension, however, will be put forward. 
If every individual minister of the church were di- 
vinely preserved from error, then it would follow that 
they must all maintain the same doctrines, and differ- 
ences and discords must be unknown. But this is 
notoriously not the case, nor ever has been. One of 
their saints, Hilary, anathematizes, in his epistles 
now extant, Pope Liberius, the then "successor of St. 
Peter." At a later period, Platina, one of their own 

* End of Controversy, p. 170. 



ON THE RtJLE OF FAITH. 27 

writervS, says, that "towards the close of the tenth, and 
beginning of the eleventh centuries, the chief object 
of the popes seemed to be, to reverse the decrees of 
their predecessors." The disputes of the Jesuits and 
Jansenists are matter of history, as well as the eccle- 
siastical censures incurred by Fenelon and Pascal, 
men of whose virtues they now are very ready to 
boast, but who, when living, were treated by the 
church of Rome as almost heretics. And, to come 
down to the present time, in the volume already quo- 
ted, lately published by Mr. O'Croly, he charges one 
of his brethren, another Roman Catholic priest, with 
having put forward "« disgusting farrago of false- 
hoodysuperslition, and blasphemy ?^ Clearly, then, 
it is impossible that it should be seriously contended, 
now-a-days, that each individual priest is, of himself, 
a vessel of infallibility, and divinely preserved from 
holding or teaching error. 

It was only a short time back that a resolution was 
advertised in various newspapers, which had been 
adopted at a public meeting of Roman Catholics, held 
at Birmingham, and v^hich ran as follows:— "That 
although the Theology of Dens has been recently pub- 
lished in Ireland, and adopted by certain of the Irish 
prelates, as a guide to the ecclesiastical conferences 
held in their dioceses ; yet the mere opinions of Dens, 
or any other individual theologian, form no part of 
Catholic faith." The same resolution further added, 
that certain sentiments put forth by Dens had been 
distinctly disclaimed by the Romish archbishop of 
Dublin. It would seem then, that we cannot even 
resort to a system of theology which has been put 
forth under the sanction of a conclave of Roman bish- 
ops, without falling in the way of errors which an 
archbishop is obliged to disclaim ! 

It will not, then, we apprehend, be questioned that, 
the priests, individually, are liable to err. In fact, it 
is never denied that some priests, some bishops, and 
even some popes, have actually preached and pub- 
hshed dangerous heresies. Still, however, we shall 
be told, that the promise of God remains unshaken, 



28 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM 



and that in the church as a whole, and with the great 
body of her pastors, the Holy Spirit constantly re- 
mains as a safeguard and a defence ; and with them, 
consequently, error can find no abiding home. 

The obvious rejoinder is, that it is still left in doubt, 
where the inquirer is to find this unerring rule. It 
is adrbiitted, that it is not a mere adherence to the 
church that will confer on him this vast immunity. It 
is admitted, also, that with each individual priest, 
error may be found, for that other priests, and even 
bishops, nay, even popes themselves, have already 
erred. Where, then, is he to go to find this "church," 
this "great body of her ministers," with whom actual 
infallibility abides? Does the church exercise this 
divine gift for the benefit of her children, or not ? 
and if she does, in what assembly, or in w^hat record 
shall he find it?' She is the divinely-empowered ex- 
pounder of the Holy Scriptures, it is said ; — has she 
then, during the fifteen hundred years of her exist- 
ence, given her children an infallible commentary on 
the word of God? If so, surely that guide which 
the inquirer needs, and which, he is told, the mere 
books of the Old and New Testaments, uninterpret- 
ed, can never supply, is already provided. 

But no! — this great work is still a desideratum. 
There is no comment which bears even the seal of 
the church's authoritative recommendation — much 
less is there any interpretation pretending to the least 
share of the church's collective infallibility. 

Where, then, is the seeker after salvation to turn? 
Does any collective body exist, with whom Christ's 
presence, which the Romish writers claim, operates 
perceptibly and undeniably in purifying away every 
tendency to error? 

Here the difficulty rather increases than diminishes. 
Many of the general councils of the Romish church 
have occupied themselves in denying and refuting the 
decisions of former councils, and in anathematizing 
the "infallibles" of the preceding age. And as to 
the pope himself, his infallibility is the very point 
which has for centuries been disputed with the great- 



ON THE RULE OP FAITH. 29 

est heat among Roman Catholics themselves. In 
England and in France, good Romanists openly ques- 
tion the pope^s personal infallibility. In Italy, and 
some other Catholic countries, to deny the sovereign 
pontiff this attribute is looked upon as little better 
than deadly heresy ! 

To what point, then, has our inquirer been con- 
ducted? What progress has he made? The Holy 
Scriptures are denied to be any guide whatever, for, 
we are told that — "Jesus Christ wrote no part of the 
New Testament himself, and gave no orders to his 
apostles to write it, nor did he intend it to be, togeth- 
er with the Old Testament, the sole rule of religion."* 
We then ask for some other rule, and are referred to 
"the church," as the body in which Christ always 
dwells, and with whom error finds no lodgement; but 
beyond this general and vague direction we cannot 
advance one step. The priests of this church are 
not, it is confessed, gifted with personal and individual 
infallibility. They have no infallible comment to 
put into the inquirer's hands, nor can they direct him 
to any person or body of persons, on whose direc- 
tions he may rely, without the possibility of error. 
Is he not, then, altogether mocked by these pretend- 
ers to infallibility? an infallibility which is ever in 
existence, but never to be approached, or heard, or 
rendered tangible; — an infallibility which answers 
admirably the purpose of maintaining the authority of 
the priesthood, but vanishes into air the moment it is 
invoked for any useful purpose. 

What remains, then, but to retreat, disappointed, 
from this bootless search after an ignis fatuus of 
infallibility; and to resort to the intelligible principle 
of Protestantism? "This book, which I hold, and 
which I can read, is God's own revealed word : That 
is my rule, my guide; I can have no better, and I 
want no other." 

A strange objection is the next that is offered. 
W"e have no right, it is said, to the use of the Holy 

En d of Controversy, p. 97. 
3 



30 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



Scriptures, while we are separated from the Romish 
church. It is insisted, by Dr. Mihier, " that the whole 
right to the Scriptures belongs to the church. She 
has preserved them; she vouches for them; and she 
alone, by comparing the several passages with each 
other, and with tradition^ authoritatively explains 
them. Hence it is impossible that the real sense of 
Scripture should ever be against her and her doctrine; 
and hence, of course, I might quash every objection 
which you can draw from every passage in it, by this 
short reply: The church understands the pass a, ^e 
differently from you, therefore you mistake its 
meaning.^^* 

This is, assuredly, spiritual despotism of the sim- 
plest and most decided character. And we see here, 
how the assumption of an infalhbility seated in some 
unnamed spot, is turned to good account in the course 
of the controversy. A modest objector is put down 
in a moment. *' I might quash every objection from 
Scripture," says Dr. Mihier, *' with this short reply. 
The church understands that passage differently 
from you, therefore you mistake its meaning.'*^ 
Could any thing be imagined more perfectly gratuitous 
in its assumption? "I quash your objection," says 
Dr. Milner, "by the short reply, the church under- 
stands that passage differently," &c. Thus, if Dr. 
Milner does not, in express words, claim infallibility 
as his own personal attribute, he acts as if no one 
could doubt his possession of it. " /tell you, that the 
church understands that passage differently, and that 
ends the question." The Doctor's simple assertion 
is to close the argument. Ho could never /?roi;e that 
"Me church'^ held this or that, but his sole declaration 
was to amount to the same thing. He could not 
produce her interpretation from an authorized com- 
mentary, for she has given none. He could not prove 
it by individual fathers, for one set of fathers had 
contradicted all that another set had said; nor could 
he prove it by the decrees of councils, for other 

* End of Controversy, p. 157. 



ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 31 

councils had decreed in an adverse way. Still, " when 
/ tell you that the church understands that pas- 
sage differently, that is to end the argument." A 
most exact picture this of the way in which this 
abstract infalhbility, which can no where be pointed 
out or described, is brought into practical use by the 
Romish priesthood ! 

But it is fearful to contemplate this usurpation of 
divine authority, whether we consider the abstract 
crime, merely, or its practical results. God, in great 
mercy, speaks to man in his written word ; and 
therein tells him how to escape everlasting woe, and 
attain to everlasting happiness. To imagine for a 
moment, what many most arrogantly and profanely 
assert, — that this message from God is not intelligible 
without the interpretation of certain poor creatures 
like ourselves, is as far removed from true rationality 
as it is from true wisdom and piety. Yet this auda- 
cious assertion is now boldly and perpetually made, 
^and men exalt themselves as the real possessors, for 
every practical purpose, of that infallibility and im- 
munity from error which belongs to God alone ! 

Liet us, however, lift up our hearts to God in 
grateful adoration, for that he has vouchsafed unto us 
this most invaluable guide and directory, in our 
darkness and difficulties, while passing through the 
wilderness of this world. 

" What," says Bishop Jewell, shall I say more of 
THE Scriptures? how profitable and comfortable 
they are in all cases and parts of our life ! In adver- 
sity, in prosperity; in life, and in death; they are 
our especial comfort. If we must fight, they are a 
sword; if we hunger, they are meat; if we thirst, 
they are drink; if we have no dwelling-place, they 
are a house; if we be naked, they are a garment; if 
we be in darkness, they are light unto our going. 

"They are comfortable in peace, in war; in heavi- 
ness, in joy; in health and sickness; in abundance, 
in poverty; in the day time, in the night season; in 
the town, in the wilderness; in company, and when 
thou art alone. For they teach faith, hope, patience. 



32 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM. 



charity, sobriety, humility, righteousness, and all 
godliness. They teach us to live, and they 

TEACH us to die." 

Let us consider, too, the fearful consequences of 
that sore judgment of God, "a famine of hearing the 
word of the Lord." " When the Scriptures are not 
opened," continues Bishop Jewell, "when there is 
none that can edify, and exhort, and comfort the 
people by the word of God, they must needs perish. 
For they know not the way in which they should 
walk ; they know not whom to honor, nor upon 
whose name they should call: they know neither 
what to believe, nor what to do. Hell hath enlarged 
itself, and hath opened his mouth without measure; 
and they that are wilful and ignorant, and the chil- 
dren of darkness, go down into it. 

" They become thrall and captives unto Satan ; 
their heart is bound up, they understand nothing; 
their eyes are shut up, they can see nothing; their 
ears are stopped up, they can hear nothing; they are 
carried away as a prey into hell, because they have 
not the knowledge of God." 

From such an awful state and condition, may the 
Lord deliver us ! But let us ever be on our guard 
against the attempts of those who would, on one pre- 
text or another, remove our feet from the rock of 
God's word, and place them on the sands of human 
inventions or interpretations. Many are the devices 
of this description which surround the inquirer's path 
at the present day. But let him ever remember, that 
God has given to man only one book, the Bible, 
and let him hold fast that one document, the charter 
of his salvation; constantly refusing to permit any 
human work, whether the decrees of councils or the 
writings of the fathers, or the alleged conclusions of 
the church in general, to be for an instant associated 
or raised to an equality with the word of God. No 
such association can be tolerated, even for an instant, 
without the greatest dishonour to God, and the utmost 
peril to our own souls. 



33 



II.— ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 



THE ROMISH CHURCH NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

In our first essay we seemed to have ascertained two 
things: — that some Rule of Faith, or infalUble guide 
to truth, is absohitely necessary; and that, practi- 
cally, the Romish church furnishes its disciples with 
no such rule, either in the form of an authentic record 
of tradition ; an infalUble commentary on the Scrip- 
tures; or a ministry divinely preserved from error. 
We argued, therefore, that the sort of infallibility 
which she assumed, being no where to be laid hold of, 
or brought to any sinner's aid, was a mere empty 
name, a downright soul-deceiving delusion. For, after 
tracking the Romish controversialists hither and thith- 
er, from popes to councils, from councils to fathers, 
from fathers to unwritten, indefinite, and undefinable 
tradition, we found at last, that the only rule of faith 
which could be distinctly described or laid down, on 
any competent Romish authority, was that which Dr. 
Milner himself thus describes: "All Catholics, if 
properly interrogated, will confess their belief in one 
comprehensive article, namely this: — I believe what- 
ever the holy Catholic church believes and teach- 

The Doctor, however, had not fully described even 
this simple rule; for when a Romanist loas so interro- 
gated, and had given, as Dr. Milner said he would, 
this general reply, he was next asked, "and^^Aa/ 
does the Catholic church believe?" His reply was, 
"the Catholic church believes what I believe." Once 
more it was demanded — "and what do both you and 
the Catholic church believe?" To which his final an- 

* End of Controversy, 18mo. p. 192. 



34 



ON ROMANISM: 



swer was, " the Catholic church and I both believe 
the same thing!" 

However, leaving this first objection, namely — that 
the Ron:iish church, while it professes to be empow- 
ered to prescribe an infallible rule of faith, does, in 
fact, give no other rule of faith than that of a blind 
submission to any thing and every thing which may 
be taught by any and by all her ministers, — leaving 
this, let us proceed to consider that fundamental prin- 
ciple, or rather assumption, upon which this exorbi- 
tant demand on the credulity of men is based. That 
assumption is, that the whole Christian faith, and all 
the records of it, of every sort and description, are 
her exclusive property. That Protestants should have 
any rule of faith is declared to be impossible, for the 
very simple reason, that they do not rightfully possess 
even the Scriptures. A passage from Tertuilian is 
quoted against them, which runs thus ; 

"If you live near Italy, you see before your eyes 
the Roman church; happy church! to which the 
apostles have left the inheritance of their doctrine 
with their blood ! It is plain, as we have said, that 
heretics are not to be allowed to appeal to Scripture, 
since they have no claim to it. Hence it is proper to 
address them as follows: Who are you.^ Whence 
do you come ? What business have you with my 
property? The estate is mine; I have the ancient, 
the prior possession of it. I have the title deeds, de- 
livered to me by the apostles; they have made their 
will in my favour; while they disinherited and cast 
you off, as strangers and enemies.'^* 

Now to this passage we might justly object, that it 
contains much of the intolerant assumption of later 
days, and that the Bible, which is God's gift to man, 
is improperly described when it is called the gift of 
the apostles to the church. But we shall not dwell 
on these minor points ; preferring to come to the 
main question, which is. What right has the church 
of Rome to assume to herself the exclusive posses- 

* End of Controversy, p. 126. 



THE ROMISH CHUHCH NOT CATHOLIC. 35 

sion of the title of the Holy Catholic Church, — the 
Church, — the spouse of Christ, — the successor of the 
apostles, — that body to which alone belongs the Sa- 
viour's promise, Zo/ lam with you alway, even to 
the end of the ivorld. 

It is upon this basis that her claim to be the only- 
infallible guide rests; it is on this assumption that 
she grounds the dictum, that a true Catholic has noth- 
ing to do but "to beUeve whatever the church believes 
and teaches." 

We ourselves admit, — all Christians, we believe, 
admit, — that to be a true member of the Catholic 
church, of that church which is Christ's body, and 
which is to God himself as "the apple of his eye," is 
to be absolutely safe. To be within the pale of this 
church is indeed salvation; to be beyond or without 
that pale is the extremest danger. And, although the 
Scriptures ought to be placed before every man, yet 
we are willing to admit that the true and Catholic 
church has that peculiar property in them which a 
child may be supposed to have in his father's will, — 
an heir, in the title deeds of his estate. But the ques- 
tion for our present discussion is. What right has the 
bishop of Rome, with those that follow him, to de- 
clare, that the people of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Aus- 
tria, France, and three or four other countries, con- 
jointly with some scattered adherents in other places, 
constitute this Catholic Church, — that they and 
they alone, are truly Christ's people ; — and that the 
Christians of England, Scotland, Holland, Denmark, 
Sweden, Russia, America, and all the east, are noth- 
ing but outcasts, rebels, heretics, and opposers of 
Christ's authority ! History affords no instance of 
arrogance more extraordinary, or pretensions more 
unfounded; and it is certainly worth while to inquire, 
with seriousness, upon what grounds so extraordi- 
nary a claim can be rested. 

Dr. Milner has, indeed, a very short and easy way 
of resolving this question. He says, "In treating of 
this third mark of the true church, as expressed in 
our common creed, I feel my spirits sink within me, 



36 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



and I am almost tempted to throw away my pen in 
despair. For what chance is there of opening the 
eyes of candid Protestants to the other marks of the 
churchj if they are capable of keeping them shut to 
this ! Every time they address the God of truth, 
either in solemn worship or in private devotion, they 
are forced, each of them, to repeat : * / believe in 
THE Catholic Church,'' and yet if I ask any of them 
the question : ^Are you a Catholic V he is sure to 
answer me, 'No, lam a Protestant !' Was there 
ever a more glaring instance of inconsistency and 
self-condemnation among rational beings?"* 

This miserable piece of trickery, for it would be in- 
justice to give it any better name, has never been so 
plainly brought to view, as by Dr. Milner. Most 
other controversialists, even among the Papists, would 
have feared to use so palpable a piece of sophistry. 
For what is it, but a mere play upon words ? His 
church has been accustomed, for centuries, to call her- 
self "the Roman Catholic church." Another body 
of religionists denominates itself "the Methodists;" 
and a third, "the Unitarians." To each we give, in 
common conversation, that title by which they choose 
to distinguish themselves, neither admitting nor de- 
nying thereby, the correctness of the claim thus made. 
If we give to one sect the name of Methodists, we 
mean not in so doing to record our admission that 
they, and they alone, have any method or order in 
their religion. If we call another body "the Unita- 
rians,''^ we do not at all acknowledge, by that term, 
that they are a whit more firm or more orthodox than 
we, in the great fundamental doctrine of the unity of 
the Godhead. And so, when, in common parlance, 
we call the adherents of the pope what they choose 
to call themselves, Roman Catholics, or, for brevity, 
Catholics, we no more mean thereby, to acknowledge 
any peculiar title in them to that appellation, than we 
do when we indulge the Methodists or the Unitarians 
with that name to which they happen to have taken 

* End of Controversy, 18mo. p. 279. 



THE ROMISH CHURCH NOT CATHOLIC. 37 

a fancy. Miserable work, indeed, is it, to build a se- 
rious argument in such a controversy as this, upon 
such a flimsy foundation ! And worse than misera- 
ble; — for by thus directing our attention to mere 
words and phrases, we are obliged to retort upon the 
doctor his own accusation. 

For Dr. Milner. knew, when he chose to represent 
the Protestant as replying No! to the question, "Are 
you a CatholicV^ that that very question as he had 
phrased it, was nothing more than a trick, a trap set 
to catch the unwary. He was well aware that any 
Protestant who was worthy of the name, — i. e. who 
knew what he protested against, — could not reply 
"iVb," to the question '''Jire you a Catholic^'''* with- 
out understanding the question itself to mean, "Are 
you a Roman Catholic?'^ His negative could only 
apply to the Romish feature of the case, and that neg- 
ative would not be uttered, except he fully understood 
that such was the purport of the question. To entrap 
such an one, therefore, into a reply which meant mere- 
ly that he was not a Romanist, and then to use that 
answer, as if he had admitted his dissent from that 
Catholic or universal church to which he, in fact, pro- 
fessed to belong, was a manoeuvre well worthy of a 
disciple of Loyola. 

But the doctor talks of "self-condemnation." Is 
there nothing of " self-condemnation" about his own 
reasoning? He insists on the absolute necessity of 
the true church's being really Catholic or universal. 
This point is laboriously argued through a long chap- 
ter. And yet, when we turn to the title page of his 
volume, we find the author there denominating him- 
self "a Roman Catholic divine !" 

Now if "self-condemnation" was ever to be dis- 
cerned, it is assuredly here. This is the very contra- 
diction in terms which, by the wondrous providence 
of God, the Romish church has ever been made to 
carry about with her. '^ Roman Catholic I" The 
phrase, as far as meaning is concerned, is just as 
rational as it would be to talk of " the English uni- 
verse." But enough of this — let us endeavour to find 



38 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



something more nearly approaching the form of an 
argument. Dr. Milner proceeds as follows : — 

"At the first promulgation of the gospel, its follow- 
ers were distinguished from the Jews by the name of 
Christians, as we learn from Scripture. Acts xi. 26. 
Hence the title of Catholic did not occur in the prim- 
itive edition of the Apostles' Creed; but no sooner did 
heresies and schisms arise, to disturb the peace of the 
church, than there was found to be a necessity of dis- 
criminating the main stock of her faithful children, to 
whom the promises of Christ belonged, from those 
self-willed choosers of their articles of belief, as the 
word heretic signifies, and from those disobedient 
separatists, as the word schismatic means. For this 
purpose the title of Catholic, or universal, was 
adopted, and applied to the true church and her chil- 
dren. Accordingly, we find it used by the immediate 
disciples of the apostles, as a distinguishing mark of 
the true church. One of these was the illustrious 
martyr St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who, writing 
to the church of Smyrna, expressly says, that" Christ 
is, where the Catholic church is.^' In like manner, 
the same church of Smyrna, giving a relation of the 
martyrdom of that holy bishop, St. Polycarp, who was 
equally a disciple of the apostles, addressed it to Uhe 
Catholic churches.' This characteristic title of the 
true church continued to be pointed out by the suc- 
ceeding fathers in their writings, and the acts of their 
councils. St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, in the fourth 
century, gives the following direction to his pupils: 
*If you go into any city, do not ask merely. Where 
is the church, or house of God? because the heretics 
pretend to have this : but ask. Which is the Catholic 
Church? because this title belongs alone to our holy 
mother.' ' We,' says a father of the fifth century, 
^ are called C«^Ao/?c Christians.' His contemporary 
St. Pacian, describes himself as follows: * Christian 
is my name, Catholic is my surname: by the former 
I am called, by the latter I am distinguished. By the 
name of Catholic, our society is distinguished from 
all heretics.^ But there is not one of the fathers or 



THE ROMISH CHURCH NOT CATHOLIC. 39 

doctors of antiquity who enlarges so copiously or so 
pointedly on this title of the true church, as the great 
St. Augustine, who died in the early part of the fifth 
century. * Many things/ he says, * detain me in the 
bosom of the Catholic church — the very name of 
Catholic detains me in it, which she has so happily 
preserved amidst the different heretics; that whereas 
they are all desirous of being called Catholics, yet if 
any stranger were to ask them, Which is the assem- 
bly of the Catholics? none of them would dare to 
point out his own place of worship.' To the same 
purpose he says elsewhere : ^ We must hold fast the 
communion of that church which is called Catholic^ 
not only by her own children, but also by all her en- 
emies. For heretics and schismatics, whether they 
will or not, when they are speaking of the Catholic 
church Vv^ith strangers, or with their own people, call 
her by the name of Catholic; inasmuch as they 
would not be understood, if they did not call her by 
the name by which all the world calls her. In pro- 
portion to their affection for the glorious name of 
Catholic, is the aversion of these primitive doctors, to 
every ecclesiastical name or title derived from par- 
ticular persons, countries, or opinions. ' What new 
heresy,' says St. Vincent of Lerius, in the sixth cen- 
tury, ^ever sprouted up, without bearing the name of 
its founder, the date of its origin,' &c. St. Justin, 
the philosopher and martyr, had previously made the 
same remark in the second century, with respect to 
the Marcionite, Valentinian, and other heretics of his 
time. Finally, the nervous St. Jerome lays down the 
following rule on this subject : ' We must live and die 
in that church, which, having been founded by the 
apostles, continues down to the present day. If, then, 
you should hear of any Christians not deriving their 
name from Christ, but from some other founder, as the 
Marcionites, the Valentinians, &c. be persuaded that 
they are not of Christ's society, but of antichrist's.' 

"And are not these observations and arguments of 
the ancient fathers as strikingly true in this nine- 
teenth century, as they were during the six first 



40 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



centuries, in which they wrote ? Is there not among 
the rival churches, one exchisively known and distin- 
guished by the name and title of the catholic 
CHURCH, as well in England, Holland, and other 
countries, which protest against this church, as in 
those which adhere to it ? Does not this effulgent 
mark of the true religion so incontestably belong to 
us, in spite of every effort to obscure it by the nick- 
names of Papist, Romanist, &c., that the rule of St. 
Cyril and St. Augustine is as good and certain now 
as it was in their times ?"* 

Such are the reasonings of Dr. Milner. But surely 
one of his closing arguments recoils with prodigious 
force upon himself. For what is the chief point on 
which he dwells? It is this: — "In proportion to 
their affection for the glorious name of Catholic, is 
the aversion of these primitive doctors to every 
ecclesiastical name or title derived from particular 
persons, countries, or opinions.'^ And what, after 
all, is the main distinction of his own church, but that 
it is the church oi Rome? 

But the great fault of this argument of Dn Milner's 
is, that there is a prodigious hiatus, or gap, in the 
very middle of it. The doctor shows, that the term 
'^the Catholic church,^'' was one commonly used in 
the first six centuries, and he quotes many expres- 
sions of the fathers in proof of the respect and 
veneration at that period attached to it. He then 
comes down at once to the present day, and says, 
"Here is that Catholic church, towards which the 
fathers expressed such respect and regard; do you 
now show the same feelings, and pay the like re- 
spect." 

But the whole gist and weight of the question at 
issue lies at that very point of the controversy which 
Dr. Milner has chosen to pass over in perfect silence. 
There has been a change in words even; but there 
has been a far greater change in things. It is not 
true, although the Doctor would so represent it, that 

* End of Controversy, p. 279—282. 



THE ROMISH CHURCH NOT CATHOLIC. 41 

there is a Catholic church visibly discerned, and 
ordinarily known by that name, now, as there was 
in the days of Cyril, Augustine, or Jerome. That 
which now endeavours to palm itself upon us, in the 
place of the Catholic church of the early ages, is 
detected by its very name. Even in Dr. Milner's 
title page it stares forth as " the Roman Catholic 
church.^' But that name is not lightly or unmean- 
ingly added: and it just makes this difference, that 
no one of those glowing expressions of allegiance or 
attachment which occur in the early fathers towards 
the Catholic church, will bear application to the 
church o{ Rome, 

Dr. Milner is very unhappy in his choice of autho- 
rities on this point. He quotes Cyril and Augustine, 
and it is true that both these fathers speak with great 
warmth of the necessity of firm adherence to the 
Catholic church. In all their expressions we go w^ith 
them. We, too, desire to belong to the Catholic 
church, and never to depart from her communion. 
But it does not follow that Cyril or Augustine felt 
themselves at all bound, or that we acknowledge any 
tie, to the church of Rome; and the fallacy lies in 
taking expressions which are intended for the one, 
and applying them to the other. We desire to 
remain in the communion of the C«Mo/zc church, but 
against the rule of the Ro7nish church we protest. 
Cyril and Augustine, like us, adhered to the Catholic 
church, but disregarded the claims and pretensions of 
the see of Rome. The presidency of the third general 
council was taken by Cyril, then patriarch of Alexan- 
dria, which fact of itself proves how little he thought 
of any claim of the Bishop of Rome to be considered 
as the head of the church. I believe that the Cyril 
quoted by Dr. Milner is one of less note than the 
patriarch of Alexandria ; but as he has introduced 
the name, I must be allowed to refer to that cele- 
brated man. As to Augustine, in his time, a synod of 
two hundred and twenty-five bishops, at Carthage, 
absolutely forbade all appeals to Rome ; and his signa- 
ture is affixed to that identical decree ! What, then. 



42 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



becomes of these two authorities, brought forward to 
establish the right of the church of Rome to arrogate 
to itself the sole possession of Catholicity? 

The facts of the case, however, upon which the 
whole question turns, are matters of history, accessi- 
ble to all. Is it true, that when the ancient fathers 
spoke of union and allegiance to the Catholic church, 
as being an essential thing in a real Christian, they 
meant thereby to enjoin union and allegiance to the 
see of Rome? Did they mean to assert that any one 
who opposed or disobeyed the mandates of the Bishop 
of Rome was therely and ipso facto, excluded from 
the pale of the Cathohc church? Nothing of the 
kind: not an idea of the sort ever crossed their 
thoughts. What are the main outlines of the case, 
as regards the authority of the Bishop of Rome ? 

There existed, for the first five or six centuries, a 
body called ^' the Catholic church,'^ which consisted 
of the great body of Christian believers and sound 
professors, in all parts of the world. This body was 
called " Catholic'' or universal, to distinguish it from 
the various sects and parties which sprang up here 
and there; and to examine into, and pronounce sen- 
tence upon which, the great body of the faithful, by 
their bishops, were frequently accustomed to meet in 
general councils. It was so called by common con- 
sent, having no legalized existence, but regulating its 
own internal affairs by its own assemblies, being for 
several centuries frowned upon by the state. 

But this Catholic church was not the Romish 
church. The pretensions of the Bishop of Rome to 
be the visible head of the church, and to have the 
power of excluding all who refused to pay him 
homage, were never heard of during all this period. 

As the seat of empire, and as a see possessed of 
great wealth, Rome always claimed for its bishop a 
post of honour, and a seat of precedency. This was 
often conceded, but all pretensions to authority over 
the cluirch was for centuries denied. At the council 
of Nice, the first great assembly of that kind upon 
record ; summoned, not by the bishop of Rome, but 



THE ROMISH CHURCH NOT CXTHOLIC. 43 

by the emperor, there was no pope from Rome to 
claim the first place, but Eustasiiis, the bishop of 
Antioch, filled the chair. And by that council the 
four patriarchs, viz: of Rome, Constantinople, Anti- 
och, and Alexandria, were declared to be of equal 
authority and rank. Previous to this (a. d. 196), 
when Victor, bishop of Rome, had endeavoured to 
impose his mandates on the churches of Asia, they 
steadily mauUained their independence, and the 
epistle of Irenseus, bishop of Lyons, rebuked Victor 
for the attempt he had made. Again, in the middle 
of the third century, one of the greatest lights of the 
church, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, repelled a similar 
assumption on the part of Rome, and maintained the 
independence and equality of the churches. Jerome 
also as explicitly declares, that all bishops are equal. 
Hilary, another father of great celebrity, so far from 
admitting the rule of the bishop of Rome, thus ad- 
dresses him, the then bishop being an Arian: "I 
anathematize thee, and that the third time, thou 
prevaricator, Liberius." 

Thus continued affairs, there being a Catholic, or 
visible and universal church, which by its councils 
decided all cases of importance, but no pope to assert 
his sole authority as Christ's vicar upon earth. The 
council of Ephesus, called the third general council, 
held A. D. 431, was presided over, as I have already 
remarked, by Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria. 
Eighteen years after, another council was held, over 
which the successor of Cyril was called to preside. 

But the two rival sees, of Rome and Constantino- 
ple, continued to increase in wealth and power, and 
to exhibit more and more of mutual rivalry and 
jealousy. The council of Chalcedon (a. d. 451) placed 
the two pontiffs on a level in rank and authority, and 
divided the visible church between them. Still, up to 
this period, there was no '''Roman Catholic church.'* 

More than a century after, the patriarch of Con- 
stantinople attempted to assume the title of " CEcu- 
menical," or " Universal Bishop;'' on which the then 
bishop of Rome, Pelagius I. wrote as follows: — 



44 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



"Regard not the name of Universal Bishop which 
John has unlawfully usurped; for let no one of the 
patriarchs use so profane an appellation. Consider 
what mischief may be expected rapidly to follow, 
when even among priests such perverted beginnings 
break forth; for he is near respecting whom it is 
written, He himself is King over all the sons of 
pride.^^ Gregory I. who succeeded to the Roman 
see, uses even stronger language when speaking of 
this subject. He says, — ^' I faithfully declare, that 
whosoever in his haughtiness shall call himself or 
desire to be called, the Universal Bishop, is the 
forerunner of Antichrist?'^ 

At last, about the year a.d. 862, the two patriarchs 
mutually excommunicated each other, and a division 
took place which has never since been healed. 

Nor was this the mere falling off of a limb, or 
branch. It is probable that at that moment the Greek 
patriarch numbered the largest body of adherents. 
Some time before, the bishops of the west were 
reckoned to be eight hundred, and those of the east, 
a thousand. But a large proportion of those formerly 
reckoned among the western churches fell to the share 
of the patriarch of Constantinople. There can be 
little ground to doubt, that a very large proportion of 
the Christian world, so far as the dominion of either 
was acknowledged, adhered to the Constantinopolitan 
head. The Greek empire decayed and waned before 
the advancing power of Islamism; but even in the 
eleventh century we find the patriarch of Constantino- 
ple presiding over sixty-five metropolitans, and more 
than six hundred bishops.* In Britain, and other 
kingdoms of Europe, the authority of neither was 
implicitly acknowledged. But let us pause here for 
a moment, and reflect on the absurdity which would 
justly have been charged upon the Roman bishop, 
had he, at that moment, viewing the division of the 
Christian world into two great portions, — declared 
that his division was the Catholic, or Universal 

*Thomassin, part iv. p, 17. 



THE ROMISH CHURCH NOT CATHOLIC. 45 

Church, and that all the rest of the professed follow- 
ers of Jesus were mere outcasts and heretics. 

In fact, nothing of the sort took place. Those high 
pretensions which Dr. Milner and other Romish con- 
troversialists are now so ready to put forth, — to the 
effect that the church of Rome is the Catholic church, 
and that all who are not of her communion are here- 
tics and outcasts, — were then unknown. The zeal 
and anger of Gregory was excited, not by the refusal 
of the bishop of Constantinople to submit to him, but 
by John's assumption of the supremacy over the 
whole church. This pretension, by whomsoever 
made, he declared to mark the forerunner of Anti- 
christ. Not assuming that title himself, he could not 
foresee that in a comparatively short period after, his 
own successors would claim it, and that soon writers 
would abound, like Dr. Milner, to argue that whoever 
was not in the church of Rome was not in the 
Catholic church. 

However, let us bear in mind this fact, that on the 
separation of the eastern from the western churches, 
the real position of the Romish church, which now 
assumes the title of " Catholic," was that of the third 
in numerical strength, among the great subdivisions 
then existing in the church. The Greek patriarch 
had a greater body of adherents ; and the churches of 
the east — Nestorian, Jacobite, &c. — outnumbered both 
Greek and Roman taken together.* Nor could the 
eastern body receive the name of a heresy or a schism, 
since on fundamental doctrines there was no differ- 
ence between it and Rome, and their contentions 
arose mainly on points of precedence and authority, 
on which, up to that time, no general rule or decision 
had obtained. 

But pass on a few centuries, and behold another 
great defection. At the Reformation, of that portion 
of the world which adhered to the Roman pontiff, 
nearly half revolted at once. England, Scotland, 
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Prussia, Holland, and 

* Vitricius, i. 76. 
4 



46 ESSAYS ON eomanism: 

many states of Germany, separated themselves from 
the Romish church. At the present moment, even 
as to mere profession, it may be questioned whether 
Romanism reckons a majority or only a minority of 
the nominally Christian world. But as to the reality^ 
except in Ireland, Belgium, and some parts of Spain, 
she has scarcely any sincere adherents left. France 
is reckoned to have thirty millions of Roman Catho- 
lics, and yet you scarcely ever see a man in her church- 
es ; and so entirely has Romanism worn itself out in 
that kingdom, that a late orator in the Chamber of 
Deputies at Paris, admitted the obvious "want of 
something to fill up the vacuum caused by the disap- 
pearance of Christianity P^ 

Thus it is evidently impossible to admit, for a sin- 
gle instant, the closing assumption of Dr. Milner. He 
sa^rs, in claiming for the Italian church the title of 
Catholic, "Does not this effulgent mark of the true re- 
ligion so incontestably belong to us, that the rule of 
Cyril and Augustine is as good and certain now, as it 
was in their times?" 

We answer, No ! for the following reasons: 
1. Because the whole face of the Christian world 
has been entirely changed since the days in which 
Cyril and Augustine wrote. The faith professed 
throughout this universal church was the simple and 
Scriptural creed now received by all Protestants. Uni- 
ty had not been destroyed by the assumptions and de- 
mands of the Roman bishops, nor had the main er- 
rors of Popery, — transubstantiation, the mass, the 
celibacy of the clergy, or the worship of images, — 
then taken root. The Scriptures were honoured and 
obeyed ; and with internal unity, and general purity 
of doctrine in fundamental points, it was natural that 
Cyril and Augustine should enjoin strict adherence to 
the Catholic church, and avoidance of all schisms 
and divisions. In their days, there was one Catholic, 
or Christian church, spread over many parts of the 
world, but holding one doctrine, adhering to one 
creed, and deciding all questions by its assemblies or 
councils. 



THE ROMISH CHURCH NOT CATHOLIC. 47 

Now, however, all is changed. We have the Greek 
churches, which are as ancient as that of Rome. We 
have also various bodies of equal antiquity; as the 
Syrian churches, the Maronites, and others. And we 
have also the inhabitants of eight or ten kingdoms 
besides, who were formerly attached to Rome, but 
who have thrown off her yoke, and have protested 
against her corruptions. And after all these changes, 
what can be more evident, more undeniable, than 
this ; that the advice of Cyril and Augustine, to cUng 
fast to the Catholic, the universal church, can no 
longer apply? Let any man possessed of common 
sense, and not already embarked in this controversy, 
say, — whether there is any one CathoHc or universal 
church visibly discernible at the present moment? 
And still more, whether it is possible, without the 
greatest violence to reason, and the plain meaning of 
the words, to declare, that the Romish church is the 
universal church, and that, consequently, the greater 
part of Christendom is out of the pale of Christian 
communion ? But, 

2. We answer, no! — because this change in the 
state of Christendom, this distraction and disunion of 
the Christian world, has been produced mainly and. 
almost solely by the misconduct of Rome herself. 

The Christian church, which was one and united 
in the days of Cyril and Augustine, has been split 
into various communions, chiefly by the intolerable 
assumptions and unscriptural pretensions of the Ro- 
mish see. 

Had Rome, in the seventh and eighth centuries, 
maintained Gregory's position, that no one prelate 
had aright to the title of universal bishop, she might 
have succeeded in preserving the unity of the church. 
But she soon began to oppose the claims of the pa- 
triarch of Constantinople by advancing still higher 
claims herself; and the end of this controversy was, 
the first great division of the visible church into two 
leading sections. 

Again, having now only the west remaining to her, 
Rome soon made her yoke so heavy, that half of Eu- 



48 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM. 

rope cast it off. In the ninth century, she had broken 
off all connexion with the larger half of the Christian 
world. In the sixteenth, she quarreled with half of 
that section which remained with her. And 3^et, af- 
ter all these secessions, — secessions, too, caused by her 
own inadmissible pretensions, she coolly anathemati- 
zes the seceders, and declares that those who abide by 
her, and those only, constitute the Christian or Cath- 
olic church ! 

But this position is evidently untenable, except, in- 
deed, she can show that with her, and with her alone, 
is the truth of Christianity to be found. If Christian- 
ity exists in other communions, as we must fain hope 
it does, then it must be impossible to maintain the 
claim of the Romish church to be, exclusively and 
solely, the catholic or universal church. Historically, 
as we have already shown, she is not so; geograph- 
ically or statistically, it is equally clear she is not so; 
and consequently it can only be by the clearest proof, 
that the truth is with her, and with her alone, — that 
her right to the title can be established. 



49 



III.— ON THE RULE OF FAITH. 



THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH EXAMINED. 

We have seen, then, that the attempt to impose the 
decisions of the church of Rome upon mankind, 
as the decisions of the Cathohc or Universal church, 
is wholly unwarranted by the facts of the case. Let 
ns now try to get a little closer to her pretensions, and 
to see what weight attaches to her claims, when con- 
sidered on their own intrinsic merits. 

We shall no where find a more artful and effective 
statement of the case, as against the Protestant rule 
of faith, and in favour of the Romish, than in Dr. 
Wiseman's Lectures. He thus states the argument: 

"The authority of history, or of ecclesiastical tra- 
dition, independently of the divine force allowed it 
by the Catholic, can prove no more than the genuine- 
ness or truth of the Scripture narrative; but to be 
available as a proof of inspiration, must carry us di- 
rectly to the attestation of the only witnesses capable 
of certifying the circumstance. It may be true that 
the church, or body of Christians, in succeeding times, 
believed the books of the New Testament to be in- 
spired. But if that church and its traditions are not 
infallible, that belief goes no farther than a mere hu- 
man or historical testimony; it can verify, therefore, 
no more than such testimony ever can; that is, out- 
ward and visible facts, such as the publication, and 
consequently the legitimacy of a work. The only 
way in which it can attest the interior acts which ac- 
companied its compilation, is, by preserving the as- 
surances of those who, besides God, could alone be 
witnesses to them. Now, ecclesiastical history has 
not preserved to us this important testimony; for no 
where have we the record of any of these writers 



50 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



having asserted his own inspiration. And thus, by- 
rejecting tradition as an authority, is the only basis 
for the inspiration of Scripture cut away." 

"Hitherto, then, my brethren, of what have I been 
treating? Why of nothing more than the prehmi- 
naries requisite to commence the study of the Protes- 
tant rule of faith. I have merely shown that the ob- 
stacles and difficulties to receiving the Bible, as the 
word of God, are numerous and complicated; and 
yet, if it is the duty of every Protestant to believe all 
that he professes, because he has sought and discov- 
ered it in the word of God; if, consequently, it is his 
duty to be satisfied only on his own evidence, as the 
divines of his church have stated; if, to attain this 
conviction, it is necessary for him to go through a long 
and painful course of learned disquisitions; and if, 
after all these have been encountered, he cannot come 
to a satisfactory demonstration of the most impor- 
tant point of inspiration, I ask you, can the rule, in 
the approach to which you must pass through such a 
labyrinth of difficulties, be that which God has given 
as a guide to -the poorest, the most illiterate, and sim- 
plest of his creatures?"* 

And having thus proved, to his own satisfaction at 
least, the weakness and uncertainty attendant on this 
course, he next proceeds to develope the Romish sys- 
tem. On this part of the subject he says: 

"Let us suppose that, not content with the more 
compendious method whereby God has brought us, 
through baptism and our early instruction, into the 
possession of the faith, we are disposed to investigate 
the authority of its principles; we begin naturally 
with Scripture — we take up the gospels, and submit 
them to examination."! 

Here we must pause for an instant, to admire the 
Proteus-like changes of Romanism, and its wonderful 
power of adapting itself to existing circumstances. 
When, till the year 1836, did the Romish church, or 
any of its advocates, admit that in the investigation 

* Wiseman's Second Lecture, p. 43. t Third Lecture, p. 62. 



THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH. 51 

of our religious principles, we should "begin natur- 
ally with Scripture?'^ When, till now, was it ever 
said, "we take up the gospels, and submit them to 
examination?'^ How opposite is the policy and the 
spirit here manifested, to the tone and temper of the 
church of Rome in those days, and in those countries, 
in which she could safely venture to lock up the word 
of God from the sight of men. Even within the last 
twenty years, we have on record the vehement op- 
position of two popes to the use of the Holy Scrip- 
ures. In 1816, Pope Pius the Seventh denounced the 
circulation of the Bible in the following terms: — "It is 
a crafty device, by which the very foundations of reli- 
gion are undermined. It is a pestilence and defile- 
ment of the faith most dangerous to souls." And 
Leo XII. in 1824, denounces the Bible Society in 
equally energetic language. "It strolls with eifronte- 
ry through the world, contemning the traditions of 
the holy fathers, and, contrary to the well-known de- 
crees of the council of Trent, labours with all its 
might, and by every means, to translate, or rather to 
pervert, the Holy Bible into the vulgar language of 
all nations." 

This was the tone adopted by the Romish church, 
when on its own ground; amidst a blind and devoted 
population, with whom proofs and arguments were 
unnecessary; with whom it was enough to say, "the 
church decrees, or declares so and so," and implicit 
submission followed of course. But Dr. Wiseman 
has a very different task in hand. He is addressing a 
people who have been accustomed to be reasoned 
with; and he knows full well, that if he were merely 
to pronounce to his hearers that he and his colleagues 
were infallible, — the rejoinder would be, "Do you ex- 
pect us to believe that, merely because you choose to 
say so?" He feels it absolutely necessary, therefore, 
to seek for some credentials. And where is he to find 
those credentials, but in the Bible? Whether he can 
find them there or not, remains to be seen; but if he 
fails in that quarter, he is not likely to succeed in any 
other. Standing, therefore, before an English audi- 



52 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

tory, and feeling himself obliged to present to them 
something bearing at least the semblance of an argu- 
ment, — he is compelled, however unwillingly, to be- 
gin with Holy Scripture; and he accordingly says, 
"being disposed, to investigate the authority of its 
principles (the principles of Romanism) xct begin na- 
turally with Scripture, — we take up the gospels/' 

But it may be said, that Dr. Wiseman does not mean 
to recommend ihis couxsQ of proceeding. Of that we 
are well aware. He evidently prefers what he calls, 
"the more compendious method whereby God brought 
us, through baptism and our early instruction, into the 
possession of the faith." In other words he would 
wish a set of followers who having been baptized 
into the Romish church in infancy, and having con- 
stantly heard, from their early instructors, that the 
Romish church was the only true church — the only 
safe church, have ever ranged themselves among her 
disciples, without a single inquiry as to the validity 
of her pretensions, or the truth of her doctrinal creed. 
These, we are aware, would be scholars after Dr. 
Wiseman's own heart. But he knows that among 
his hearers at Moorfields, this sort of blind admission 
of the most arrogant pretensions cannot be generally 
expected. He is obliged to deal with them as with rea- 
sonable creatures. And he finds it impossible to con- 
struct a plausible scheme, on which to rest his system 
of belief, except by going at once to Scripture, and 
endeavouring to frame a case out of its testimony. 
Observe, however, the confession herein implied. If 
a man is content with "the compendious method,'^ 
as Dr. Wiseman calls it, of believing without inves- 
tigation, this he can do in any church and with any 
creed. But if he is "disposed to investigate the au- 
thority of his principles," if he is desirous of being 
able to "give a reason of the hope that is in him," 
then, even Dr. Wiseman himself can help him to no 
other course than to "begin naturally with Scrip- 
ture," — to "take up the gospels, and submit them to 
examination." Thus, after all his horror at the idea 
of the exercise of "private judgment," after all his 



THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH. 53 

proofs of the impossibility of a plain unlettered man's 
being ever able to discover the grounds of his faith in 
Scripture, he is obliged at last to fall back upon the 
use of the Bible itself, — of that Bible which the coun- 
cil of Trent, declared to be "likely to do more harm 
than good,'' and the reading of which that council 
declared to be unlawful even to the regular clergy 
themselves, except ''with the permission of their pre- 
lates." To a body of several hundreds of laymen, 
of all classes, rich and poor, learned and ignorant, — 
to the whole of these, without the least discrimina- 
tion, does Dr. Wiseman address himself, assuming 
that they all possess the Bible, — that they are all able 
and competent to study it, — and to each and all he 
addresses the same direction, that if they "would in- 
vestigate the authority of their principles," they must 
"begin naturally with Scripture," they must "take up 
the gospels, and submit them to examination." Here, 
then, we have the Protestant rule unhesitatingly 
adopted; here we have a simple and absolute appeal 
to Holy Scripture resorted to; and we feel little hesi- 
tation in determining the motive to be, that Dr. W. 
knew and felt the utter impossibility of taking any 
other course; the impossibility of constructing in 
such form as to be fit for an English eye, his theologi- 
cal system, until he had found some solid foundation; 
the impossibility, in short, of finding in the works and 
words of mere human beings, a basis whereon to 
build a system which was to reach eternity. He did 
well, therefore, in at least attempting to gain a 
groundwork from Holy Scripture; but let it be ob- 
served that in so doing he has given up the old Ro- 
mish ground of the unfitness of the Scriptures for the 
use of the common people; — he has carried his whole 
audience with him to the word of God; and having 
so done, he is no longer in a situation to object to the 
Protestant Rule of Faith. 

But we have stopped at the very opening of his ar- 
gument. Not to misrepresent him, we proceed with 
the whole statement: — 

'< We take up the gospels, and submit them to ex- 



54 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



amination. We abstract for a moment from our be- 
lief in their inspiration and divine authority — we look 
at them simply as historical works, and intended for 
our information; writings from which we are anxious 
to gather such truths as may be useful to our instruc- 
tion. We find, in the first place, that to these works, 
whether considered in their substance or their form, 
are attached all those motives of human credibility 
which we can possibly require: — that there is, through- 
out them, an absence of every element which could 
suggest the suspicion that there has been either a de- 
sire to deceive, or a possibility of having been mista- 
ken. For we find a body of external testimony suf- 
ficient to satisfy us, that these are documents pro- 
duced at the time when they profess to have been 
written, and that those persons were their authors, 
whose names they bear. And as these were eye-wit- 
nesses of what they relate, and give us, in their lives 
and characters, the strongest security of their veraci- 
ty, we conclude all that they have recorded to be cer- 
tain and true. We thus arrive at the discovery, that 
besides their mere narrative, they unfold to us a sys- 
tem of religion, preached by one who wrought the 
most stupendous miracles to establish and confirm the 
divinity of his mission. In other words, we are led 
by the simple^ principle of human investigation to an 
acknowledgment of the authority of Christ to teach, 
as one who came from God: and we are thus led to 
the necessity of yielding implicit credence to what- 
ever we find him to have taught. So far the investiga- 
tion being one of outward and visible facts, cannot 
require any thing more than simple, historical, or hu- 
man evidence. 

"Having once thus established the divine authority 
of Christ, we naturally inquire, what is it that Christ 
taught? and we find that he was not contented merely 
with teaching certain general principles of morality, 
— that he was not satisfied with unfolding to man- 
kind doctrines such as none before him had attempted 
to teach, and thereby making man acquainted with 
his own fallen nature and with his future destiny; 



THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH. 55 

but that, moreover, he took means to preserve those 
doctrinal communications to mankind. We find it 
obviously his intention that the system he estabUshed 
should be beneficial, not only to those who lived in 
his own days, and heard his word, but to the entire 
world, until the end of time; that he intended his 
religion to be something perm.anent, something com- 
mensurate with the existence of those wants of hu- 
manity which he came to relieve: and consequently, 
we naturally ask, in what way the obligations which 
he came to enforce, and the truths which he suffered 
to seal, were to be preserved, and what the place 
wherein they were to be deposited? If they were to 
be perpetual, proper provision must have been made 
for their perpetuation. 

*'Now, the Catholic falls in with a number of very 
strong passages in which our blessed Saviour, not 
content with promising a continuance of his doc- 
trines, that is to say, the continued obligation of 
faith upon man, also pledges himself for their actual 
preservation among them. He selects a certain body 
of men; he invests them, not merely with great au- 
thority, but with power, equal to his own; he makes 
them a promise of remaining with them and teaching 
among them even to the end of time: and thus, once 
again, he naturally concludes, that there must have 
existed for ever a corresponding institution, for the 
preservation of those doctrines, and the perpetuation 
of those blessings, which our Saviour came manifestly 
to communicate. 

" Thus then, merely proceeding by historical rea- 
soning, such as would guide an infidel to believe in 
Christ's superior mission, he comes, from the word 
of Christ, whom those historical motives oblige him 
to believe, to acknowledge the existence of a body, 
depository of those doctrines which he came to 
establish among men. This succession of persons 
constituted to preserve those doctrines of faith, ap- 
pointed as the successors of the apostles, having within 
them the guarantee of Christ teaching among them for 
ever; and this body is what he calls the church. He 



56 ESSAYS ON ROMANtSM: 

is in possession, from that moment, of an assurance of 
divine authority, and in the whole remaining part of 
the investigation, he has no need to turn back, by 
calling in once more the evidence of man. For, from 
the moment he is satisfied that Christ has appointed 
a succession of men whose province it is, by aid of a 
supernatural assistance, to preserve inviolable those 
doctrines which God has delivered — from that mo- 
ment, whatever these men teach is invested with 
that divine authority, which he had found in Christ 
through the evidence of his miracles. This body, so 
constituted, immediately takes on itself the office of 
teaching and informing him that the sacred volume, 
which he had been hitherto treating as a mere his- 
tory — that the document which he had been perusing 
solely with a deep and solemn interest, is a book 
which commands a much greater degree of respect 
and attention, than any human motives could possibly 
bestow. For now the church stands forth with that 
authority wherewith she is invested by Christ — and 
proclaims: ^ Under that guarantee of divine assist- 
ance, which the words of Christ, in whom you believe 
have given me, I pronounce that this book contains 
the revealed word of God, and is inspired by the Holy 
Spirit; and that it contains all that has a right to enter 
into the sacred collection.' And thus the Catholic 
at length arrives, on the authority of the church, at 
these two important doctrines of the canon and the 
inspiration of scripture, which I endeavoured to show, 
at our last meeting, it was almost, if not quite im- 
possible, to reach by any course of ordinary human 
investigation.''* 

Such is the artfully framed argument, upon which 
Dr. Wiseman's main reliance is placed. The late 
Robert Hall declared the building the infallible au- 
thority of the church of Rome upon the Scriptures, 
and the infallibility of the Scriptures upon the church 
of Rome, to be " a gross insult upon the understand- 
ing." In the passage just quoted, the utmost art of 

* Wiseman's Third Lecture, p. 62 — 5. 



THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH. 57 

the sophist is exerted to conceal the real character of 
this attempt to deceive. For the purpose of his argu- 
ment, the doctor chooses to assume that the reader is 
to take up the Scriptures, "simply as historical works, 
intended for our information.^^ A man may certainly 
so study them ; hut let it be remembered, that as long 
as he views them in this light, he studies them as an 
infidel, and not as a Christian. The very first step 
towards the acquisition of the Christian faith, is, the 
full acknowledgment of Holy Scripture, not as a 
" simply historical work," but as the word of God. 
Till this point is gained, nothing is done. To read 
the Scriptures as a mere " historical work," is to read 
them as the productions of erring and fallible men, — 
of creatures who, from the essential imperfections of 
their nature, are actually incapable of narrating 
circumstances or conversations of any length, without 
falling into errors, omissions, and misconstructions. 
Dr. Wiseman's basis, therefore, will not support his 
superstructure. If a candid inquirer reads the gospels 
as he reads Thucydides or Robertson, making allow- 
ances, as he goes on, for the imperfections of a human 
author, he will never attach such vast importance to 
two or three expressions in certain conversations 
there narrated, as to imagine that upon those expres- 
sions, — which may, perhaps, (upon this hypothesis,) 
have been erroneously given, — such a system as the 
papacy and the infallibility of the church of Rome 
could ever be legitimately raised. No ! before those 
few words upon which the Romish church seeks to 
found her vast pretensions, can ever be imagined 
capable of sustaining such a weight, they must be 
fully believed to be the words, not of a mere " histori- 
cal writer," but of one who spoke or wrote as he was 
moved by the Holy Ghost. 

> But here the question assumes a new form. The 
reader believes the book he is reading to be either 
the word of God, or the word of man. It is not 
mixed and alloyed, for in that case none could tell 
which was the gold, and which the alloy; but it is, 
all of it, either the word of man or the word of God. 



58- ESSAYS ON eomanism: 

If it is the word of man, or the fallible narrations of 
what the writers saw or heard, or supposed that they 
saw or heard, then it is no sufficient foundation for so 
vast a superstructure as an infaUible church. But if 
it is the tvord of God, then have we found in it the 
most important possession of which man ever gained 
the knowledge; — an unerring guide to his Creator's 
mind and will — a guide which cannot err and will not 
deceive — a manual in which all the great doctrines 
of religion are explicitly set forth with far more 
prominence and emphasis than is given to any of the 
passages on which the church of Rome founds her 
claims. 

But it may be objected, that Dr. Wiseman only 
refers his hearers to the gospel for a single doctrine: — 
for the establishment of the authority of his church. 
He says, "When an ambassador presents himself 
before a sovereign, he is asked, where are his creden- 
tials ! He presents them, and on the strength of them 
he is acknowledged as an ambassador." In like 
manner, the doctor considers that the Scriptures 
establish the authority of the church ; and that the 
inquirer is in possession, from that moment, of an 
assurance of divine authority, and, "in the whole 
remaining part of the investigation, he has no need to 
turn back, by calling in once more the evidence of 
man." In other words, that the main use of Scrip- 
ture to Christians in general, is to establish the 
authority of the church, which being done, the wisest 
course is, to close up the Bible, and listen only to the 
priest. But the illustration he uses detects the weak- 
ness of his argument. Scripture, he says, furnishes 
the credentials of his church : — These being presented, 
and the otiicial character of the bearer thus establish- 
ed, that document may be laid aside, and the functions 
of the ambassador begin. Now let any one who has 
ever read a dozen pages of Scripture, say whether 
this is even a tolerable description of them. The 
credentials of an ambassador are plain and brief, and 
concern, solely, that one point which they have 
especially in view. They describe, and identify, and 



THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH. 59 

empower, the person bearing them, and they do no 
more. On the other hand, the Bible is a large and 
extensive document, embracing the most important 
parts of the history of the world j detailing a series 
of most important doctrines; setting forth many 
wondrous prophecies; detailing the whole history of 
redemption, and enlarging upon all the chief doctrines 
and duties of Christianity. In the midst of all this 
immense variety of interesting matter, there occur two 
or three brief passages which the Romish church 
chooses to understand as investing her with almost 
illimitable authority. They consist of very few 
words, and of those few words the meaning is some- 
what obscure, and has always been disputed. Yet, 
argues Dr. Wiseman, the chief use of the Scripture to 
the inquirer, lies in these two or three passages. In 
these, which a student might pass over without 
imagining that they contained any thing remarkable, 
is involved the whole authority of the Romish church. 
These, especially, above all others, ought to com- 
mand the inquirer's attention. Having found and 
considered these, he is in possession of the credentials 
of the church, he is to "take for his guide those texts 
which appoint the church to teach," and with this 
guide it is unnecessary for him to waste more time 
over the written word. " For," says he, " while the 
authority of Scripture, as a rule of faith, is thus per- 
fectly compatible with the existence of an authority 
to teach; the existence of an authority to teach 
excludes, not indeed the Scripture, but the all-suffi- 
ciency of Scripture. For where there is a supreme 
authority given, and man is commanded to obey it, 
from that command there is assuredly no retreat. 
And therefore the Scripture must needs be received, 
so as to be reconciled, with the existence of a 
supreme authority in matters of faith, existing in the 
church." Scripture, therefore, is subjected and de- 
s Glared inferior to, the authority of the church. The 
church is not bound by the words of Scripture, but 
the language of Scripture is to be interpreted or 
modified by the decisions of the church. Little can 



60 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

it matter, therefore, whether the Scriptures are read 
or not; and small reason has any one for reading them, 
since, according to Dr. Wiseman, there is a higher 
authority, to whoFe decisions it must be much more 
profitable to direct our attention. 

Dr. Wiseman, then, alleges, that "merely proceed- 
ing by historical reasoning," an inquirer must be 
brought to the conclusion, that the gospels are true 
and authentic narratives, that Christ was a divine 
person, possessed of the highest authority, and that 
he transferred that authority, on leaving this world, 
to his apostles and their successors. Having thus 
found a body so constituted, and preserved from error 
by supernatural aid, he argues that its infallible de- 
cisions must be a safer and a more authoritative 
guide, than the collection of writings called the Bible. 

In opposition to which, we may observe: — 1. That 
the Romanist can only arrive at this authoritative 
guide, this infallible authority, thus professedly drawn 
from Scripture itself, by the use of the Protestant 
rule of faith; and 2. That when he has so attained 
it, it is no supreme authority that he has found, 
but only one attendant on, and ministerial of, the 
Scriptures themselves. 

First, then, in thus building the Romish church and 
its assumed authority, on a careful investigation of 
Scripture, the Protestant rule of faith is most fully 
adopted, and all the objections to it virtually aban- 
doned. For let it be observed, that in previously in- 
sisting upon the impossibility of establishing the Scrip- 
tures as the only rule of faith. Dr. Wiseman had ob- 
jected, — 

"That before any one could even commence the 
examination of that rule, he must have satisfied him- 
self, that all these books or writings which are col- 
lected together in that volume, are really the genuine 
works of those whose names they bear."* 

Also, "that no such genuine work has been ex- 
cluded, so that the rule be perfect and entire." 

* Dr. Wiseman's Second Lecture, p. 32. 



THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH. 61 

Also, "he must satisfy himself by his own individ- 
ual examination, that this book is inspired by God." 

Also, that if the Scripture is to be the rule of faith, 
"it must be a rule easy to be procured and to be held. 
God himself must have made the necessary pro- 
vision, that all men should have it, and be able to 
apply it.''* 

Also, that all men "must surely be able to compre- 
hend it." "Such, therefore," he proceeds, "are the 
difficulties regarding the application of this rule; a 
difficulty of procuring and preserving the proper sense 
of the original by correct translations; a difficulty of 
bringing this translation within the reach of all; a dif- 
ficulty, not to say an impossibility, of enabling all to 
understand it."t 

Now, who can overlook this obvious inconsistency 
in the doctor's argument, in that each and every one 
of these objections applies with just as much force 
to his own proof of the church's authority. Finding 
it necessary, in England, not merely to assert, but to 
prove, the boasted authority and infallibility of his 
church, he tells his hearers that for this purpose," we 
begin naturally with Scripture, we take up the gos- 
pels, and submit them to examination." But who does 
not see, that the very instant he adopts this, the Pro- 
testant method of arguing, all his own objections, just 
before urged, return upon him with double force. 
Before this examination of the gospels can establish 
any thing, the student must, according to his own 
showing, have satisfied himself that these writings 
are really the genuine works of those whose names 
they bear; that they contain all that these writers 
left on these subjects; that they were inspired of God, 
and so on, to the end of his series of objections! 

He has, however, still another shift. He endea- 
vours to elude the force of his own objections, inas- 
much as he does not rest the same dependence on the 
Scripture which Protestants do. With them it is 
every thing; the sole rule of faith, the alone standard 

* Dr. Wiseman's Second Lecture, p. 44. t Ibid, pp. 47, 48. 

5 



62 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM : 

of morals. Dr. Wiseman's argument goes only to 
prove that before it can safely be thus relied upon, 
we ought to have an assurance of this authenticity 
and inspiration, which, without the testimony of the 
church, he thinks cannot be obtained. But while he 
adheres to this argument, he is very ready to use the 
gospels as a mere historical document, and to prove 
by them, the mission and authority of the Catholic 
church! But he takes especial care that it is merely 
as a human testimony, as an historical document, that 
he has recourse to their aid. He is most explicit on 
this point, that up to the moment of the student's 
discovery of the power of the church, the Scrip- 
tures had been nothing more to him, than "a mere 
history."* 

We are, therefore, compelled again to look steadily 
at this point of the case; and to ask, whether it is 
possible to establish an infallible authority upon so 
slender and insufficient a basis? 

Before we can determine what weight and value is 
to be attached to the testimony of any author, espe- 
cially of an historical writer, it is clearly and abso- 
lutely necessary that we should first ascertain his 
real character. If he be a dishonest and partial wit- 
ness, then his evidence must be received with sus- 
picion, and only credited where a full corroboration 
is at hand. If he be a man of honour and integrity, 
then we shall listen to his testimony with reliance, 
and give it a general reception into our minds; but 
still allowing something for human error and misin- 
formation. It is only upon evidence of a higher char- 
acter still, — of a far higher character indeed, that we 
can venture to rest with safety and confidence, when 
the truths which concern our everlasting salvation are 
the subjects of the investigation. 

Yet what is the course of reasoning adopted by 
Dr. Wiseman? He takes up the gospels, merely, he 
assures us again and again, as historical documents, 
of fair average credibility; and in one of them he 

* Wiseman's Third Lecture, p. 64. 



THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH. 63 

finds these words, said to have been used on a cer- 
tain occasion, by Christ, ^^ All power is given to me 
in heaven and on earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach 
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Fa- 
ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teach- 
ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
commanded yon. And, behold, I am with you al- 
ways, even unto the end of the ivorld.^^ 

This passage according to Dr. Wiseman's argu- 
ment, we cannot know, — till we have admitted the 
authority of the Romish church, and that church has 
declared it to be inspired of God, — to be any thing 
more than a common, ordinary narration hke those of 
the sayings of Csesar or of Socrates. But who will 
venture to take up the pages of Livy or of Thucy- 
dides, or any other mere historian, and to pin his 
faith on the perfect accuracy with which every sen- 
tence of every conversation is noted down? And 
who, treating St. Matthew's gospel "as a mere his- 
tory," — and so, according to Dr. Wiseman it must be 
treated, (until we have submitted to the church, and 
the church certifies its inspiration) — who will dare to 
pledge his faith upon the probability, (for if the gos- 
pel be a "mere history," it can be nothing more,) 
that these v/ords of Christ's, narrated by Matthew 
thirty years after they were spoken, were narrated 
with perfect accuracy? 

Who will assure us that not one word was added, 
nor one omitted; or that the word so added or omit- 
ted was of no material consequence? Will any stu- 
dent of history produce a passage of similar length, 
from Herodotus or Tacitus, from Hume or Robertson, 
from any modern or any ancient writer, and aver ihat 
he is absolutely certain that the speech so set down 
in the record, is precisely and accurately the very 
speech, to the letter, that was uttered? If not, — 
if it cannot even be imagined that such a thing 
exists, except by inspiration, as a perfect record, made 
years after the fact, of a speech actually spoken, in 
the very words which really fell from the speaker, — 
why should this single passage in Matthew be taken 



64 ESSAYS ON R03IANISM : 

to be the one solitary exception to the universal rule, 
of the imperfection of human memories, and of 
human records? No, if the standing and authority of 
the church of Rome rests on nothing better than a 
passage of six or eight lines, occurring in "a mere 
history," — then, assuredly, it rests upon the sand, and 
might challenge the annals of imposition to show a 
weaker or a narrower foundation. 

fVe, however, believe these verses of Matthew to 
have been penned under the influence of the inspi- 
ration of the Holy Spirit, and to be, therefore, most 
accurately and authoritatively recorded. Dr. Wise- 
man's error is, in adducing them only as the testimony 
of "a mere history," — as "human testimony." If 
they be nothing better, — or, which is the same thing, 
if they are to be dealt with as if they were nothing 
better than "a mere history," then might we as well 
attempt to found a rehgion on some story found in 
Xenophon or in Rapin, as to build the lofty preten- 
sions of the Romish church upon a passage of some 
half dozen lines, occurring in the pages of one who 
might either have misconceived or half-forgotten 
what he had heard, if, indeed, he ever heard what he 
relates. Never was there a more monstrous dispro- 
portion apparent, than this attempt to build an uni- 
versal and infallible church, upon what is alleged to 
be nothing more than an act of the memory of a sin- 
gle, unsupported, and fallible man. 

Had Dr. Wiseman sought a sufficient basis for his 
argument, he should have dealt with the Scriptures 
in their proper character of a revelation from God. 
This, their true character, can be established, and has 
been established, repeatedly and abundantly, without 
the aid of the church of Rome. This Dr. Wiseman 
knew, but he preferred even to risk his cause by rest- 
ing it upon an insufficient foundation, rather than to 
declare, at the outset, the divine authority of Holy 
Scripture, and to take all the consequences flowing 
therefrom. He was well aware that if it should ap- 
pear that we have in God's word, an infallible guide 
and standard of doctrine, without the interference of 



THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH. 65 

the church of Rome, it might probably follow that 
men would perceive that this boasted infallibility of 
the church was not needed, and was, in fact, of no 
real use to them. They would be apt to argue that 
an infallible guide, to be of any utility, must be infal- 
lible, not only in the aggregate, but also in all its 
parts. The Bible was the work of inspiration, as a 
whole; and each verse in it was equally true and 
equally divine. But if the church could be called 
infallible as a whole, was every priest of that church 
to be treated as infallible also? If not, of what use 
was this abstract infallibility, since it was with some 
individual priest that each man had to do. Thus the 
Bible, if admitted and declared to be an inspired vol- 
ume, must, in the exercise of common sense, be pre- 
ferred to that church, which, although claiming infal- 
libility, would not or could not explain how, or 
through what medium, that attribute was to be exer- 
cised. 

But we have to remark, in the second place, that 
even were Dr. Wiseman's argument admitted, and 
we were to allow the possibility of establishing an 
infallible authority by the testimony of a fallible 
witness, we have not thereby got rid of the Bible, 
but have merely enforced another duty; and one 
which, as clearly contained in Scripture, is as little 
objected to by Protestants as it is by Romanists — 
namely, the duty oi 'preaching the gospel; as well as 
of distributing it in the form of copies of the divine 
word. 

Dr. Wiseman argues very vehemently against the 
use of the Scriptures as a rule of faith, and in favour 
of a settled ministry. We contend in favour of hoth^ 
and against neither. The Scriptures require to be 
heralded and accompanied by the messengers of salva- 
tion; on this point there is no difference of opinion : — 
require, we say, not absolutely, (for the Spirit of God 
can act by means of the written word alone, or even 
without any human means whatever) but generally. 
The command of Christ is two-fold, and one injunc- 
tion is as binding as the other. To his apostles, and 



66 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

to those who, after their example, should devote 
themselves to his cause, his mandate is, Preach the 
gospel to every creature. To mankind generally, 
who are to hear this gospel, his injunction is, Search 
the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of me. 
Now Protestants fully receive both these rules. 
We preach the gospel; and we direct the people to 
search the Scriptures for a warrant for every word we 
say. Nor will the Romish church, at least in a Pro- 
testant country, venture directly to impugn either of 
these two instructions. She exalts and extols the 
ministry, and she dares not openly deny the use of 
the Scriptures. Where, then, is the main ground of 
difference between us? It lies in the opposite conclu- 
sions to which we come, as to the ultimate authority 
on any question. The written word, and the ministry, 
being both in operation among the people, the ques- 
tion is, which of the two is the greater? We Protest- 
ants say, that the inspired word of God is the only 
infallible guide and standard, and that the ministers 
of the gospel are simply to preach what they find 
therein contained. We make, therefore, the Bible to 
be the ultimate standard, in case of any difference 
arising. The Romish church, on the other hand, 
asserts that the authority of Scripture is subordinate 
to that of the ministry. In the words of Dr. Wiseman, 
"the Scripture must needs be received, so as to be 
reconciied with the existence of a supreme authority, 
in matters of faith, existing in the church.^^ To 
explain this distinction as briefly as possible, Protest- 
ants declare that the ministers of the gospel have no 
right or authority to teach any thing as necessary to 
salvation, save what may be proved from Holy Scrip- 
ture. The church of Rome, on the other hand, affirms 
that neither may the words of holy writ be understood 
in any other sense than that which she chooses to put 
upon them, nor is it true that Scripture contains all 
things necessary to salvation. With us, the Bible is 
the standard to which the preacher himself and every 
thing else is to be brought; with the Romanist the 
Bible may only be understood as the church chooses 



THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH. 67 

to interpret it, and to its contents they add an 
indefinite mass of further doctrines, under the title 
of the " umvritten traditions of the church." The 
vast difference between the two systems, and the 
great superiority of the Protestant doctrine, is clearly 
apparent. They make the priest every thing, the 
Bible only subsidiary and attendant. We make the 
Bible every thing, and the priest, a minister, a 
preacher of God's holy word. Now the Bible, which 
we thus exalt to the first rank, and fake as our highest 
authority, is wholly and exclusively divine. It con- 
tains " truth without any mixture of error," and in 
being governed by its dictates we cannot possibly err. 
But the priest, who is placed above the Bible in their 
scheme, is a mere fallible man, liable to error, and 
open to temptation. They cannot, in pushing their 
favourite text, " Lo, I am with you always, even to 
the end of the world,^^ to its utmost limits, venture to 
imagine, that Christ's constant presence and guidance 
is bestowed on every priest of their church. To do 
this would be to aver, that when a priest, afterwards 
proved to be insane, actually killed an infant with his 
own hands, in a village in Ireland, a few years back, 
under pretence of performing a miracle, he then and 
there acted under the divine guidance and inspira- 
tion! Yet this will not be asserted; and if not, then 
how are we to understand the presence and protection 
of Christ, and where is the immunity from error which 
this alleged presence confers? 

And, after all the objections that can be made to 
the Protestant rule of faith, and amidst all the diffi- 
culties propounded, — that rule will still possess one 
immense and decisive advantage over the Romish 
rule; namely, that it is intelligible and practical; that 
it can be pointed out and defined. "Holy Scripture 
containeth all things necessary to salvation ; so that 
whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved 
thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it 
should be believed as an article of faith." This state- 
ment, being accompanied, as it is, by a list of the 
books of Holy Scripture, is at least sufficiently clear. 



68 ESSAYS ON Romanism: 

Dr. Wiseman, like most other Romish controversial- 
ists, endeavours to alarm us with a long array of 
difficulties, as to proving the inspiration of Scripture, 
and as to understanding Scripture, when proved; — 
but while he thus strives to take away our hope, what 
does he give us in exchange? He aims to establish 
the superior and supreme authority of the church; 
but had he succeeded ever so well here, still the ques- 
tion would return; — when and where has the church 
spoken ? 

The Protestant, on the other hand, puts into the 
poor man's hands a certain well-known book; and 
tells him that that book, being the pure and unadul- 
terated word of God, being "truth without any mix- 
ture of error," cannot possibly mislead or deceive him. 
The Romanist dares not deny its divine character, but 
assures him that, though it be indeed the word of God, 
it will be impossible for him to understand it without 
the aid x)f the church. Obviously, then, supposing 
this view to be the correct one, the very next thing to 
be sought, is, that aid of the church which is repre- 
sented as so essentially necessary. 

Now the extent and nature of the Protestant rule 
was at all events sufficiently clear. The way of 
salvation was declared by him to be fully and suffi- 
ciently revealed within the limits of this single 
volume; and though not denying the existence of 
some difficulties, it was still believed that " the loay- 
faring 7nan, though a fool, should not err therein.^^ 
In striving, then, to weaken the poor man's reliance 
on this guide, Dr. Wiseman is surely bound to give 
him in exchange, one equally simple and easy of 
application. He is told, that "the church has a 
supreme authority to teach," and that the S riptures 
cannot be understood without her teaching, o But, in 
drawing from his grasp that which they do not deny 
to be the inspired word of God, — that which they 
admit to be infallibly true, what do the Romanists 
give him that will bear the least comparison with 
what they ask him to resign? What do they give 
him, in fact, except the mere oral instructions of a 



THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH. 69 

poor fallible man? The church, thev say, is infalli- 
ble, and has the promise of being always preserved 
from error. But they will not venture to tell us that 
every individual priest is infallible, or that none of 
their clergy have ever fallen into error. So that 
while they take away that which is not denied to be 
infallible, merely on the ground that it cannot be un- 
derstood, — they propose in its place a guide who is 
merely human, and who, consequently, may lead us 
into a thousand errors. 

The fact is, that this infallibility of their church, of 
w^hich they make such boast, and which they press 
upon mankind as something far superior to the writ- 
ten word, is an ignis fatuus, a notion or fancy which 
is ever fleeting before us, and which can never be 
found in any definite form. Even their highest 
authorities are divided as to where it resides; whether 
in the pope alone, or in a council apart from the 
pope, or in a pope and council unitedly; and even 
could this fundamental point be agreed upon, how 
far would the poor man be from deriving a benefit 
from either! The church is an infallible teacher, they 
tell us; but where does the church teach? The Scrip- 
tures cannot be understood without her aid, they say; 
but where is that aid afforded ? She gives no infalli- 
ble exposition or commentary of the Scriptures: the 
traditions upon which she lays such stress, are still 
"the unwritten word;" that is, are still floating about 
in the minds, and memories, and fancies of men. 
Propound the most important question to this church, 
and of whom can you expect an answer? In fact, 
in what form does this "church" present itself to the 
poor man, but in that of his priest? The priest re- 
presents "the church;" speaks the decisions of "the 
church;" is "the church" in his sole person. All the 
infallibility which is of any practical utility to the 
inquirer, is the infallibility of this priest. If he, in- 
deed, — if every individual priest in their church can 
be supposed to be infallible, — then may the poor man 
have something whereon to rest. But if they can- 
not, and assuredly they will not, venture on this mon- 



70 



ESSAYS ON Romanism: 



strous assumption, then it follows that the inquirer's 
guide, he who represents "the church," he who is all 
"the church" that the poor man can get access to, is 
a mere erring, fallible man. So that, after all, this 
device of Satan, for it is nothing else, turns out to be 
a mere scheme for getting the poor man's Bible out 
of his hand, under the pretence of giving him some- 
thing far better; and then deluding him with an 
empty phrase about the infallibility of the church, 
Avhich ends at last in laying him tied and bound at 
the feet of a poor human being like himself! 

Again, however, we are sent to the words of Scrip- 
ture, whether as inspired, or as " a mere history;" 
— we are required to listen to the words of Christ, 
and to Dr. Wiseman's comment on them: '•'' Jill power 
is given to me in heaven and on earth. Go ye. there- 
fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you. Jind, lo, I am 
with you always, even unto the end of the ivorld.'^ 
(Matt, xxviii. 18-20.) 

The Doctor's comment runs thus: — "I ask you, is 
not this a commission exactly comprising all that I 
said we might expect to find? Does it not institute 
a body of men to whom Christ has given security, 
that they shall be faithful depositaries of his truth? 
Does it not constitute the kingdom, whereunto all 
nations should come? Does it not establish therein 
his own permanent teaching, in lieu of prophecy, so 
as to prevent all error from entering into the church? 
and is not this church to last till the end of time? 
Now this is precisely all that the Catholic church 
teaches, all that she claims and holds, as the basis 
and foundation whereupon to build her rule of faith. 
The successors of the apostles in the church of Christ 
have received the security of his own words, and his 
promise of *a perpetual teaching,' so that they shall 
not be allowed to fall into error. It is this promise 
which assures her she is the depositary of all truth, 
and is gifted with an exemption from all liability to 



THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH. 71 

err, and has authority to claim from all men, and 
from all nations, submission to her guidance and in- 
struction.'^* 

Here we are again treated with that insufferable 
assumption to which we referred in our last Essay. 
Throughout the whole we hear of "the church," and 
"the Catholic church," as if it were true that both at 
the present moment, and in all former times, there 
had always been a "Catholic or universal church/' 
in some visible form, to which these expressions of 
our Saviour might be safely applied. But this is a 
mere fiction: it is a gross misrepresentation of the 
case. In the first four or five centuries, no doubt, a 
really Catholic church existed. But this was not the 
church of Rome, any more than it was the church of 
England. The first general council ever held, and 
that at a period when Christianity had spread over 
the whole civilized world, — was neither held at 
Rome, nor summoned by a pope, nor presided over 
by a bishop of Rome. It was called together by the 
emperor; held at Nice; and presided over by a Span- 
ish bishop, as the senior member present. The same 
observation applies to several subsequent councils. 
In a century or two after, we find the four patriarchs, 
as they were called, of Rome, Constantinople, Anti- 
och, and Alexandria, ascending to a rank above the 
other bishops of the church; and still later the num- 
ber is reduced to two, — Rome and Constantinople. 
After a long contest for the rank and authority of 
universal bishop, — the east and west finally se- 
parate, — each declaring hostility against the other. 
Blame may be attached to either side; but one thing 
is clear, that Rome, with her division of the Catholic 
church, could have no right or authority to unchris- 
tianize or cast off the whole body of the eastern 
churches. Here, then, was a permanent division of 
the Catholic church into two great sections. About 
seven centuries after, six or eight nations of Europe 
found the exactionsof the Papal see so heavy, that they 

* Wiseman's Fourth Lecture, p. 109, 



72 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



also threw off her yoke. And, judging by the rule, 
^'hy their fruits ye shall know them^^^ — we do not 
find England, Scotland, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, 
and parts of Germany, less moral, less peaceful, less 
industrious, or less respected than Italy or Spain, 
which adhered to Rome. We do not think, there- 
fore, that in abandoning Rome, they abandoned Chris- 
tianity. 

Now, when, after all these divisions and separa- 
tions, we find one branch of the professedly Christian 
world setting itself up as "Me church," "the Catholic 
church," we cannot look upon it or speak of it, as 
any thing else than an instance of the most intolera- 
ble arrogance, and the most unfounded pretension. 

Practically, too, this scheme is fraught with far 
more difficulties than Dr. W. himself has been able to 
allege against the Protestant rule. 

"Before any one can even commence the examina- 
tion of the Scriptures," says Dr. W., "he must have 
satisfied himself that all these books and writings 
which are collected together in that volume are really 
the genuine work of those whose names they bear; 
and also that no such genuine work has been exclu- 
ded,"* &c. Equally clear is it, that before any one 
can apply our Lord's words immediately before his 
ascension, to the church of Rome, he must have it 
clearly made out to him, that of all the various bodies 
of Christian ministers in the world, those holding 
under the bishop of Rome are the only ones who can 
rightly adopt and claim the promise then given. And, 
finding a multitude of other Christian churches in the 
world, with whom the Romish church holds no inter- 
course, he must see "that no genuine" church "has 
been excluded," so that the body is really Catholic 
and entire. 

Now to the inhabitants of a Roman Catholic coun- 
try, or even to such persons, here, as have been long 
living in quiet submission to the Romish priesthood, 
and have been inured and accustomed to the high 

* Wiseman's Second Lecture, p. 32. 



THE ROMISH RULE OF FAITH. 73 

pretensions of that church, — the conchision may seem 
natural enough; — but in more than half the countries 
of the globe, the case would be difierent. 

The Greek Christians might argue thus: — "Time 
was when Rome and Constantinople were sister patri- 
archates in the same Catholic and universal church. 
In the seventh and eighth centuries, each see was 
filled in turn by men of more ambition and self- 
will than became their profession. Each alternately 
claimed the pre-eminence, while the other as firmly 
resisted the claim. Finally, the breach between these 
two sections of the general church became irrepara- 
ble. The greater part of Christendom was divided 
between the two; the eastern patriarch taking his 
portion, — the western his; since when the visible 
church has never once acted in concord and union, 
but each country or section has taken its own course; 
the greater part of Europe going with the bishop of 
Rome, and the Asiatic Christians, generally, with the 
patriarch of Constantinople. But, clearly, neither of 
these rulers had any right to exclude the other from 
his place in the visible church; or to say, that his fol- 
lowers constituted the Catholic church; and that all 
who are not subjects of his, were rebels to the great 
Head of the church.*' 

The Armenian would reason in a similar manner. 
"Our church," he would say, "was formed at the be- 
ginning of the fourth century, when Rome advanced 
no pretensions to the dominion of the Christian church. 
At that period, at the council of Nice, no one thought 
of such a thing as any dominion or rule exercised by 
the see of Rome over all other churches. We, there- 
fore, were no rebels or deserters from the allegiance 
of Rome, for, at that period, she claimed none. Since 
then we have heard, indeed, of her increased and 
exaggerated pretensions; but they concerned us noth- 
ing. And are we to be unchristianized and excluded 
from the visible church, merely because Rome, which 
is no mother of ours, has chosen to demand homage 
from the whole Christian world, and we, owing her 
no such submission have refused to pay it." 



74 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



Of a similar character would be the remonstrance 
of a member of the Syrian church at Malabar. "For 
more than fifteen centuries," he would say, "have we 
preserved the Christian faith, which we never receiv- 
ed from Rome, and which we are not willing to 
allow Rome to take away from us. The Portuguese, 
when they first came among us, and found more than 
a hundred Christian churches, said, "These church- 
es belong to the pope." "Who is the pope.^" we 
answered; "we never heard of him." And was it 
to be endured that an Itahan bishop, of whose name, 
even, we were wholly ignorant, and to whom we 
owed nothing of any kind, should send his demands 
of tribute and allegiance to us, who knew not even 
so much as his existence?" 

Thus would all the easterns agree in declaring this 
assumption to be wholly unfounded; their faith and 
doctrine was Christian, they would say; their ordina- 
tion and succession was apostolic; and they were no 
rebels to any lawful authority of the pope, for of such 
authority they had no knowledge. What is the 
answer to their case? It deeply concerns the present 
question, — for, if the Romish church be not, indeed, 
the Catholic church, but only a section of it, — then it 
must clearly follow that in such promises as were 
just now quoted, she can claim no more than a mere 
participation. 

"Zo, I am toith you always^"^ said the Saviour; 
but with whom did he then promise to be present? 
With his whole church; with the Catholic church; 
not with the church of Rome exclusively or especi- 
ally; with his whole church on earth, the representa- 
tives of which were then present. But if that prom- 
ise was not made to the bishop of Rome, or to any 
other section of the church, then what title has that 
bishop, or any other, to impose laws on his brethren? 

Thus the Romish Rule of Faith is clearly open to 
two objections: First, it removes from its just supre- 
macy, as the sole and sufficient guide, and the ulti- 
mate appeal, — God's message to man, as found in 
Holy Scripture; and hands us over from a definite 



THE BOMISH RULE OF FAITH. 75 

and intelligible rule to one which constantly evades 
the grasp, and affords nothing tangible or satisfactory 
to the inquirer. And, secondly, because, when it 
refers us to the judgment of the church, the Catholic 
church, as the only true rule of faith, it refers us to 
that which can no where be found, — inasmuch as 
the several divisions of the Catholic church are scat- 
tered over the face of the whole earth, disunited and 
contending against each other, — a state which is 
greatly caused by the unfounded pretensions of the 
church of Rome. We reject, then, this rule, both 
because it is dishonouring to God and his word, and 
because it refers to a "Catholic church," which partly 
owing to the divisions and dissensions caused by the 
claims of Rome, can nowhere, at least in our day, be 
discerned or consulted. 



76 



IV.— THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 



UNITY. 



We have already denied the truth of the church of 
Rome's favourite assumption, — that she is "the Ca- 
tholic church;" and have combated it on the general 
ground, that there are other churches in the world 
besides herself, and that she can show no title to arro- 
gate to herself an exclusive claim to that title. She 
returns, however, to the charge, and contends for her 
sole right to that title, inasmuch as she alone, she 
alleges, can properly answer to the ancient descrip- 
tion, in being ''One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." 
This, then, will naturally become the next subject for 
consideration. 

We will begin with Dr. Mihier's statement. He 
says, " The chief marks of the true church, which I 
shall here assign, are not only conformable to reason, 
Scripture and tradition, but they are such as the 
church of FJngland, and most other respectable de- 
nominations of Protestants, acknowledge and profess 
to believe in, no less than Catholics. They are con- 
tained in those creeds which you recite in your daily 
prayers, and proclaim in your solemn worship. In 
fact, what do you say of the church you believe in, 
when you repeat the apostles' creed.? You say, / 
believe in the holy catholic church. Again, how is 
this church more particularly described in the Nicene 
creed ? You say, / believe in one catholic and 
apostolic church. Hence it evidently follows, that 
the church which you, no less than we, profess to 
believe in, is possessed of these four marks, unity, 
sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity. It is agreed 
upon then, that all we have to do, by way of dis- 
covering the true church, is to find out which of the 



UNITY. 77 

rival churches or comrtumions is peculiarly oJie, holy^ 
catholic, and apostolic.^^^ 

Now here the learned doctor is rather hasty. He 
says, "it is agreed upon," but this is like many other 
of his assumptions. It has never been '• agreed upon" 
by any Protestants, that Dr. Milner should set about 
finding, among certain territorial or national churches, 
whether the Roman, the Greek, the Armenian, or the 
English, — by divers visible signs or " marks," which 
of them is " the true church." This, we repeat, has 
never been '^agreed upon," as Dr. Milner chooses to 
assert, but it is a mere fancy of his own. The catholic 
or universal church, in which Protestants believe, is 
not a visible but an invisible body — in fact, it is the 
body of which Christ is the head, and consists of all 
those, of every nation and from amongst all the visi- 
ble churches, who have become, by regeneration, 
living branches of the true vine, and stones of the 
heavenly temple. But let us admit for a moment, 
for argument's sake, Dr. Milner's supposition, that to 
find out the true church, it is only necessary to dis- 
cover, which of the rival churches is peculiarly one, 
holy, catholic, and apostolic, and let us see how he 
contrives to establish a claim to superiority, on all 
these heads, in behalf of his own church. 

Unity is the first of these distinguishing features, 
and the Doctor begins by arguing that it can never be 
said to belong to the Protestants. He then proceeds 
to prove that it is a distinguishing characteristic of 
the church of Rome. 

That unity is no feature of Protestantism, he con- 
tends, is sufficiently clear from the multitude of 
churches and sects which have sprung up among 
them. Bossuet wrote " two considerable volumes on 
the Variations of Protestants ^ 

To this we reply, that differences and contrarieties of 
opinion are no more peculiar to Protestantism than to 
Popery. It is true that Bossuet did exercise his skill 
in drawing together a great collection of individual 

*Milner's End of Controversy, p. 176. 
6 



78 ESSAYS ON eojtanism: 

errors and contradictions ; but he never made out half 
such a case against the Protestants, as Mr. Edgar has 
since done against the church of Rome, in his Varia- 
tions of Popery. The only fair and honest way of 
judging of this question, is not by raking up the 
words of this or that man, or the follies of some little 
sect or faction, but by taking a just and large view of 
the main features of each party. 

Now on the side of Protestantism it is to be ob- 
served, that at the period of the Reformation, the 
various nations which threw off the yoke of Rome, 
all felt the necessity of some public document, or con- 
fession of faith, and all, acting independently, and 
without combination, concert, or collusion, proceeded 
to compose such declaration. Twelve Confessions, 
namely, the Augustan, Tetrapolitan, Polish, Sax- 
on, Bohemian, Wittembergian, Palatine, Helvetian, 
French, Dutch. English, and Scottish, appeared with- 
in a few years. These were composed by clergy 
scattered all over Europe, and they represented the 
views embraced by all the Protestant nations of 
Europe. And instead of presentmg, as Dr. Milner 
would have us believe, a chaos of contradiction and 
confusion, " the harmony is truly surprising, and con- 
stitutes an extraordinary event in the history of man. 
The annals of religion and philosophy supply no 
other example of such unity, agreement, and consist- 
ency. All these comprehensive abridgments showed, 
in varied diction, an astonishing unity in the main, 
on all doctrinal questions, though they might differ 
in discipline, form, and ceremony. ^^* What trifling, 
then, is it, to turn away from this extraordinary proof 
of essential unity of doctrine, as shown in public 
documents, and to aim at proving contrariety by a re- 
ference to the errors and follies of individual writers. 

But does the same unity mark the church of Rome? 
By no means. How does Dr. Milner attempt to 
prove it? By her creeds. Well, but most Protestant 
churches hold the three ancient creeds, as well as the 

* Edgar's Variations of Popery, p. 32. 



UNITY. 79 

church of Rome, and yet Dr. Mihier will not allow 
them to possess unity of doctrine. And the fourth, 
the modern creed of Pope Pius IV., which consti-* 
lutes the main difference between Romanists and 
Protestants, as far as creeds are concerned, makes 
the poor Romanist declare, that he ** receives and pro- 
fesses all things that are declared by the sacred ca- 
nons diwd gene7'a I councils/'' 

Now, at first sight, assuredly here is a show of 
unity. Every Romanist is pledged to profess the 
same things that every other Romanist professes. 

But if we look a little closer, all this apparent unity 
and agreement vanishes. The belief so professed, to 
be real and substantial, must have certain definite 
objects. Now when we inquire touching these, all 
show or possibility of unity instantly vanishes. 

The believer is to "receive all things which are 
declared by the sacred canons and general councils." 
Now, in the first place, the poor deluded man here 
promises what, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred,. 
IS absolutely impossible. To "receive and profess" 
a doctrine, it is at least necessary, we presume, that 
it should be presented to the mind. Now, how is 
this wholesale believer to know what ''i\\Q sacred 
canons and general councils have declared?" 

His church gives him no help in this important 
matter. Not a single effort has she ever made, to- 
place "the general councils" within reach of her fol- 
lowers. It is only, then, in those solitary cases in 
which a man possessed of great wealth can purchase, 
— or, possessed of leisure and classical learning, can 
go to a public library and read, — it is only in these 
few cases, we repeat, that the disciple of Romanism 
can even know what it is that he has promised impli- 
citly to receive. 

But this is only the beginning of perplexities. Sup- 
pose the neophyte to succeed in gaining access, by 
some means or other to the voluminous records of the 
councils, a fresh difficulty immediately opens upon 
him. This very united church, — this "centre," in 
short "of unity," is not even agreed within itself^ 



80 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

which councils they are which are to be considered as 
"general," and which, therefore, are binding on the 
conscience of the believer ! 

"Gibert, a leading Romish authority, admits 'the 
uncertainty of the Western Ecumenical councils/ 
Moreri grants Uhe disagreement of authors in their 
enumeration. One reckons more and another less; 
whilst some account these universal and approved, 
which others regard as provincial, national or con- 
demned.' A full detail of popish variety indeed 
would, on this topic, fill folios. This, however, is 
unnecessary. A statement of each individual's pecu- 
liar notions, on this, or indeed on any other subject, 
would be tedious and useless. The opinions enter- 
tained on this question, not merely by a few persons, 
but by influential parties, are worthy of observa- 
tion; and these only, in the following pages shall be 
detailed. 

"Three jarring and numerous factions have, on the 
subject of general councils, divided and agitated the 
Romish communion. One party reckons the general 
councils at eighteen. A second faction counts the 
same number; but adopts different councils. These 
reject the councils of Lyons, Florence, Lateran, and 
Trent; and adopt, in their stead, those of Pisa, Con- 
stance, Basil, and the second of Pisa. A third divi- 
sion omits the whole or a part of the councils, which 
intervened between the eighth and sixteenth of these 
general conventions. The v/hole of these are omitted 
by Clement, Abrahamus, and Pole, and a part by 
Sixtus, Carranza, Silvius, and the council of Con- 
stance. 

"One party in the popish communion reckons the 
general councils at eighteen. Of these, five met re- 
spectively at Ephesus, Chalcedon, Vienna, Florence, 
and Trent. Two convened at Nicaea, two at Lyons, 
four at Constantinople, and five at the Lateran. The 
patrons of this enumeration are, in general, the Ital- 
ian faction, headed by the pope, and maintaining his 
temporal, as well as his spiritual authority. Baron- 
ius and Beliarmine,in particular, have patronized this 



UNITY. 



m 



scheme with learning and ability; but with a total 
disregard of all honour and honesty. 

"Bellarmine, besides the eighteen which are appro- 
ved, reckons eight general councils which are repro- 
bated, and six which are partly admitted and partly 
rejected. One, which is the Pisan, — strange to tell — 
is neither adopted nor proscribed. Bellarmine's dis- 
tinctions and decisions indeed are badly calculated to 
establish the authority of councils. His hair-breadth 
distinctions and arbitrary decisions, on the contrary, 
tend only to overthrow all confidence in his determi- 
nations, and in universal councils. 

'^AU the eighteen, however, were not accounted 
valid or unerring on their first publication. Six, 
marked now with the seal of approbation and infal- 
libility, were, for a long series of time, in whole or 
in part, rejected, by a part or by the whole of Christ- 
endom. These are the second, third, fourth, fifth, 
seventh, and twelfth general councils. The canons 
of the second, according to Alexander and Thomas- 
sin, were not received by the Latins till the Lateran 
council in 1215, a period of eight hundred and thirty 
four years after their promulgation. Its faith, indeed, 
in opposition to Macedonianism, corresponded with 
that of the westerns, and was, in consequence, admit- 
ted by Damasus, Gelasius, and Gregory. Its creed, 
however, was recognized only on the authority of 
divine revelation and ancient faith. Leo rejected its 
canons. Simplicius and Felix, enumerating the coun- 
cils which they acknowledged, mention only those of 
Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. Gregory the Great 
declared that the Roman church possessed neither the 
acts nor canons of the Byzantine assembly, though 
his Infallibility, in glorious inconsistency, elsewhere 
affirmed that he esteemed the four ecumenical coun- 
cils of Nicaea, Ephesus, Constantinople and Chalce- 
don as the four gospels."* 

Such is the inextricable confusion in which this 
compulsory "unity without union'Ms sure to involve 

* Edgar's Variations of Romanism, p. 96, 97. 



82 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM; 

US. The honest and sincere inquirer, we may well 
suppose, will be almost in despair at the prospect 
which opens before him. 

But suppose him to wade or struggle through this 
preliminary difficulty, and to adopt some one of the 
numerous list of councils, with a view of proceeding 
on his inquiries as to the belief of the church: he 
now finds, the very instant he moves forward, that he 
has only yet opened upon a series of perplexities. 

The exact position of the pope, in the Romish 
church; the extent of his supremacy and authority; 
nay, the very names of the popes of former times, — 
all these matters offer each their peculiar opening for 
doubts and difficulties. The conflicting lists of popes, 
the disputes arising out of the schisms, in which there 
were sometimes two popes, sometimes three, at the 
same moment of time, — all these present a perfect 
chaos of confusion. 

But passing over these, the extent of the existing 
pontiffs power and jurisdiction is equally a matter of 
strife and contention. "The authority attached to 
this dignity, remains to the present day undecided. 
Opinions on this topic have floated at freedom, un- 
fixed by any acknowledged standard, and uncontrol- 
led by any recognized decision. The Romish doc- 
tors, in consequence, have, on the pontifical suprem- 
acy, roved at random through all the gradations and 
forms of diversified and conflicting systems. 

"These systems are many, and as might be expect- 
ed, are distinguished in many instances by trifling 
and evanescent shades of discrimination. A full enu- 
meration would be endless, and, at the same time, is 
useless. The chief variations on this topic may be 
reduced to four. One confers a mere presidency, and 
the second an unlimited sovereignty, on the Roman 
pontiffi The third makes the pope equal, and the 
fourth superior, to God!^^* 

The next step is from one difficulty to another. 
The infallibility of the church is a primary doctrine 

* Variations of Popery, p. 124. 



UNITY. 



83 



with all the Romish theologians. But the honest 
inquirer will wish to know what is the real meaning 
of this phrase; and he will find unity or oneness in 
sentiment, just as far from Romanism in this point as 
in the preceding ones. 

"All their writers, indeed, seem to agree in ascrib- 
ing infallibility to the church. But this agreement 
in words is no proof of unity in opinion. Its advo- 
cates differ in the interpretation of the term; and 
apply to the expression no less than four different 
significations. Four conflicting factions, in conse- 
quence, exist on this subject in the Romish commu- 
nion. One party place infallibility in the church vir- 
tual or the Roman pontiff. A second faction seat 
inerrability in the church representative or a general 
council. A third class ascribe this prerogative to a 
union of the church virtual and representative, or, in 
other terms, to a general council headed by the Ro- 
man pontiff. A fourth division, rejecting the other 
systems, persist in attributing exemption from error 
only to the church collective or dispersed, embracing 
the whole body of professors, clergy and laity."* 

These examples may suffice. It is enough to say, 
that turn where we will, and inquire into what 
doctrine we may, the church of Rome, under the 
name of union, presents a perfect Babel of opposing 
opinions. 

Well has bishop Jewell, in his Jipology, replied 
to the objection of the want of unity among Protest- 
ants: — 

" And whereas they say we are divided into divers 
sects, and that some of us have taken the name of 
Lutherans, and others of Zuinglians, and we could 
never yet agree among ourselves concerning the sum 
of our doctrines ; what would they have said if they 
had lived in the times of the apostles and holy 
fathers? when one said, "I am of Paul, another, I 
am of Cephas; and another, I am of Apollos:'' when 
St. Paul reprehended St. Peter: when, by reason of a 

* Variations of Popery, p. 158. 



64 



iAYS ON ROMANISM; 



quarrel, Paul and Barnabas separated one from the 
other, and went several ways. When, as Origen ac- 
quaints us, the Christians were divided into so many- 
factions, that they had no name common to them but 
that of Christian, and they agreed in nothing else but 
that name, and, as Socrates informs us, they were 
derided publicly in the theatres by the people for 
their dissensions and sects; and when, as Constantine 
the Great said, There, were so many contentions 
and controversies in the church, that this very single 
calamity seemed to exceed the miseries of the former 
times of persecution. When Theophilus, Epipha- 
nius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Ruffinus, and Jerome, 
all of them Christians, all fathers, and all Catholics, 
contested with each other with most bitter and im- 
placable animosity; when, as Nazianzen saith, 'The 
members of the same body consumed one another.' 
When the eastern and western churches were divided 
from each other about leavened bread, and the time 
of keeping- Easter — things of no mighty consequence. 
When in every council, which were then numerous, 
there was a new creed, and new and contrary decrees 
invented. What would these men have then said? 
to whom would they have applied themselves? from 
whom would they have fled? in what gospel would 
they have believed? whom would they have esteemed 
catholics, and whom heretics? Now there are only 
two names, Luther and Zuinglius ; and what a noise 
is made about them ! But because these two men 
could not agree about a certain point, shall we there- 
fore think they are both in the wrong, that neither of 
them has the gospel, and that neither has preached 
well and truly? 

" But who are they that so bitterly reflect on us 
for our dissensions? Do they, in the mean time, all 
agree among themselves? Have there never been 
any dissensions and controversies among them ? Why 
then do the Scotists and Thomists agree no better con- 
cerning the merit of congruity and that of condignity; 
concerning original sin in the Virgin Mary; and about 
a solemn and simple vow? Why do the canonists 



UNITY. 85 

affirm that auricular confession is founded on human 
and positive laws; and the schoolmen, on the con- 
trary, on divine institution? Why does Albertus 
Pighius differ from Cajetan; Thomas from Lombard; 
Scotus from Thomas ; Occham from Scotus; Aliacen- 
sis from Occham; and the Nominals from the Real- 
ists? And that I may not mention the disagreements 
of the small brotherhoods and monks, some of which 
place their admired sanctity in eating of fish, others 
in living upon herbs; some in wearing of shoes, 
others in sandals; some in linen garments, and others 
in woollen ; some in black, and some in white clothes; 
some shave their heads broad, and others narrow; 
some wear shoes, and others go barefoot; some are 
girded, and some go loose ; besides these, they should 
remember that some of their divines say, that the 
body of Christ is naturally present in the sacrament, 
which is again denied by others. There also are 
some who say, that the body of Christ in the sacra- 
ment is torn and ground with our teeth, and again 
there are others who deny this; there are some who 
say, that the body in the sacrament hath quantity, 
others deny it; some say, Christ did consecrate by a 
certain divine power, others that he did it by his 
blessing ; some, that he did it by conceiving the five 
words in his mind, others that it was by uttering 
them. There are some that say, that of these five 
words the demonstrative pronoun * this' showed the 
wheaten bread, others say no; but it relates to a cer- 
tain 'vagum individuum' (a no man knows what). 
There are some who say, ^ Dogs and mice may truly 
and really eat the body of Christ:' but then there are 
others who stoutly deny this. There are some who 
say the accidents of the bread and wine can nourish, 
and others say the substance returns again. But why 
should I add any more? it is a long and troublesome 
business to count up all their divisions; the whole 
form of their religion and doctrine is to this day con- 
troverted and uncertain, among those who first gave 
being and entertainment to it: for they scarcely ever 



86 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



agree, except it be as the pharisees and sadducees, or 
as Herod and Pilate did of old, against Christ."* 

Unity, then, in the church of Rome, exists in only- 
one shape; — that of '^absolute, unconditional sub- 
mission to the teaching of the church."! Multitudes, 
doubtless, there are, who say with Dr. Milner, " I 
beheve whatever the Holy Catholic church believes 
and teaches." But this is not unity of doctrine; it is 
merely uniformity of mental slavery! The man who 
adopts this system does, in effect, say to his priest, 
" I put myself into your hands ; do you believe for me 
whatever you think best, and I will subscribe it, pro- 
fess it, swear to it, or any thing else you please." 

An unity of this kind does indeed exist among the 
adherents of the Romish priesthood ; but it is neither 
more respectable or more safe than the same kind of 
mental slavery as it exists in Ceylon, in Hindostan, 
or in Madagascar. It is merely the old device of 
Satan, by which men's consciences maybe quieted, 
on the one hand, and religion turned into a gainful 
trade, on the other: the multitude giving their souls 
blindfold into the hands of the priests of Buddhu, of 
Brahma, or of Antichrist ; and receiving back, from 
the sellers of pardons, sundry soul-deceiving delu- 
sions. Such an unity exists in the Romish church ; 
but it is not an unity of doctrine, in any correct sense 
of the word. 

For " doctrine" is that which addresses itself to the 
understanding and to the heart, and to be really em- 
braced, it must first be understood. And we have 
already shown that it is impossible for Rome to offer 
to her adherents any thing resembling unity of doc- 
trine, in this sense; simply because she does not her- 
self possess it. 

There is, there can be, only one source of unity in 
doctrine; simply because there is but one source of 
truth. In the divine word that source is opened to 
us. In it there is no discrepancy, no inconsistency, 

* Apologia, cap. v. sec. 1. t Wiseman, lect. 1. p. 17. 



UNITY. 87 

no need of disunion. The nearer, therefore, men keep 
to it, just so much the nearer will they draw to each 
other. It is a common centre, where all who will 
may unite, and it is the only centre where such a 
genuine and real union can take place. 

But as truth is one, and the only source of real 
union, so error is multifarious, and in itself essentially 
destructive of unity. Just in proportion as men recede 
from the only centre of union, do they also recede 
from each other, but in an endless variety of direc- 
tions. 

Rome refuses, without hesitation and without re- 
serve, to abide by this centre of unity. It is a prin- 
ciple of action with her, to fly from the unerring 
word of God, to the erring and jarring decisions, in- 
terpretations, and opinions of men. And thus it is 
that by an inevitable consequence she banishes unity 
of doctrine from her pale. Her fundamental princi- 
ple actually renders it impossible. It never has ex- 
isted, and it never can exist, within her communion. 
Her internal history consists of little else than a series 
of controversies and dissensions; and it is only exter- 
nally that she can offer a show of unity, which, how- 
ever, is nothing more than the necessary credulity 
of blindness, and the mute acquiescence of mental 
thraldom. 



88 



v.— THE CHURCH. 



THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 

From the first mark of the true church, as stated by 
Dr. Milner, Unity, we proceed to the second — Sanc- 
tity. On this head. Dr. Mikier remarks, that *' Rea- 
son itself teils us, that the God of purity and sanctity 
could not institute a religion destitute of this charac- 
ter, and the inspired apostle assures us that Christ 
loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he 
might sanctify and cleanse it, with the washing of 
water, by the word; that he might present it to him- 
self a glorious church, not having spot or ivrinkle. 
Ephes. V. 25, 27. The comparison which I am going 
to institute between the Catholic church and the 
leading Protestant societies on the article of Sanctity 
or Holiness, will be made on these four heads; 1st. 
The Doctrine of Holiness'; 2dly. The Means of Ho- 
liness; 3dly. The Fruits of Holiness; and lastly, The 
Divine Testimony of Holiness."* 

He then proceeds to establish his first point, thus: 
— " To consider, first, the doctrine of the chief Pro- 
testant communions: this is well known to have been 
originally grounded in the pernicious and impious 
principles, that God is the author and necessitating 
cause, as well as the avenging punisher of sin; that 
man has no free will to avoid it; and that justifica- 
tion and salvation are the eff'ects of an enthusiastic 
persuasion, under the name oi faith, that a person 
is d^cixxdWy justified and saved, independently of any 
real belief in the revealed truths, independently of 

* End of Controversy, p, 205, 206. 



SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 89 

hope, charity, repentance for sin, benevolence to our 
fellow-creatures, loyalty to our king and country; or 
any other virtue; all which were censured by the first 
reformers as they are by the strict Methodists still, 
under the name of works, and by many of them de- 
clared to be even hurtful to salvation. It is asserted 
in the Harmony of Confessions, a celebrated work, 
published in the early times of the Reformation, that 
"all the confessions of the Protestant churches teach 
this primary article (of justification) with a holy con- 
sent;" which seems to imply, says Archdeacon Black- 
burn, "that this was the single article in which they 
all did agree."* 

Now one would naturally have expected, that after 
thus broadly stating those frightful charges against 
"the chief Protestant communions," and having al- 
luded to the "confessions of the Protestant churches" 
as teaching the errors he lays to their charge, — one 
would naturally have expected, we repeat, that so 
grave an accusation would have been immediately 
sustained by a reference to these same documents. 
In any such reasonable expectation, however, the 
reader will be entirely disappointed. Not one single 
line from any one of the Protestant confessions is 
adduced by the learned Doctor, in support of this 
grievous charge. Not an iota of proof, in fact, is 
furnished, in support of this most extraordinary ac- 
cusation! What kind of conduct is this in one who 
professes to receive as the command of God, the pre- 
cept, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy 
neighbour!" 

But by what show of evidence, then, does the Doc- 
tor support his accusation? By seven short quota- 
tions, of three or four lines each, from Luther; four 
from Calvin; one from Beza; one from Fuller; one 
fromStrype; one from Brandt; and one from Bos- 
suet. Now of these it may be sufficient to observe, 
that some are the mere misrepresentations of ene- 
mies; others prove nothing whatever to the question; 

* End of Controversy, p. 206. 



90 ESSAYS ON eomanism: 

while the remainder are merely the unguarded and 
strong expressions of two or three good but fallible 
men, writing in the heat of controversy. 

Dr. Milner knows very well, that in the matter of 
predestination, free will, &c., these Protestant writers 
agreed entirely with Augustine, one of the greatest 
of the early fathers, to whose name the church of 
Rome pays the highest honour. He knows full well 
that the very passages he quotes from Luther and 
Calvin might be easily matched by others from the 
works of this great saint of his own calendar. He 
knows, too, that if whole churches are to be judged 
of by single expressions, culled from the writings of 
individual fathers, the church of Rome may be 
proved guilty of Montanism by the works of Tertul- 
lian, and of Platonism by those of Origen. But he 
knows also, that all such attempts at crimination are 
nothing else than the merest folly. He is well aware 
that a church can only be convicted by its own acts 
and confessions. He opens his accusation by charg- 
ing "the chief Protestant communions" with ground- 
ing their doctrine "on the pernicious and impious 
principle, that God is the author and necessitating 
cause, as well as the avenging punisher of sin;" — he 
then alludes to "the confessions of the Protestant 
churches" as containing this doctrine; — but he does 
not produce a single line from any one of them in 
support of the charge ! The reason is, that he could 
never find, among them all, a single word bearing 
any such meaning; in other words, the whole charge 
is utterly and entirely false; and this he could not 
but have known at the time he made it! 

But after thus calumniating the whole body of 
Protestant churches, and yet failing to establish one 
iota against them, the doctor naturally comes to 
speak of his own church. And here we might have 
expected him to be a little more difluse, and better 
prepared with proofs. Instead of which, though he 
has now to prove the more important part of his 
case, — that the Romish church is peculiarly the holy 
Catholic church, — he glances over the subject in little 



SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 91 

more than two pages! In fact, his whole argument, 
over and above some general assertions, is confined 
to this, that "If the doctrine of the Catholic church 
was once holy, namely, in the apostolic age, it is holy 
still; because the church never changes her doctrine, 
nor suffers any person in her communion to change 
it, or to question any part of it.'^ 

A bolder defiance to truth than this never was 
penned. It supposes the whole history of the past 
to have been blotted out of men's memories. What 
were ail the doctrinal contests of so many successive 
councils caused by, if the doctrine of the Catholic 
church ever remained the same, — unaltered and un- 
impugned? Look at pope Zozimus and his synod at 
Rome; see the council of Frankfort in a. d. 794; both 
approving the heresy of Pelagius; and then behold 
various other councils, ending with that of Trent, 
anathematizing that same doctrine, and all who held 
it. Nay, the yet more fatal error of Arius was first 
condemned by the council of Nice, then accepted by 
the council of Sirmium; the synods of Ariminum and 
Seleucia subsequently confirmed the adhesion of the 
church to this heresy, and the words of Jerome him- 
self are, — "the whole world groaned to find itself 
become Arian." Yet after the lapse of years this 
error waned and became nearly extinct, and has 
since been condemned by as many councils as had 
previously supported it. An equal changeability 
was exhibited by popes and councils in the cases of 
the Eutychian and Monothelan heresies. But enough 
has been said to show that this absurd boast, that 
"the (Romish) church never changes its doctrine," is 
one of the most groundless vaunts that ever came 
from the pen of a human being. 

It may, however, be answered, that these heresies 
have now long since been subdued, and that the ex- 
isting doctrine of the Romish church is free from such 
stains. This may be admitted; but still the argument 
of Dr. Milner, that " if the doctrine of the Catholic 
church was holy in the apostolic age, it must be so 
now, because it is never permitted to be altered or 



92 



ESSAYS ON EOMANISM 



impugned," is clearly gone, is entirely destroyed, and 
we have only to deal with the doctrinal standard of 
the Romish church as we now find it. 

What, then, is the real state of the case, as to the 
alleged holiness of doctrine of the church of Rome? 

It is this: in so far as she holds, in common with 
Protestants, the ancient creeds or professions of faith, 
called the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian — 
she possesses the true and orthodox doctrine. But 
inasmuch as she has added to that faith the whole 
accumulation of error contained in the creed of pope 
Pius the IVth, she has thereby alloyed and defiled 
the true faith with a mixture of many and great errors. 
And error in religion is never innoxious. It always 
leads to sin. Every single particle, therefore, of these 
additions to the ancient faith, is opposed to sanctity 
or holiness. The words of Christ exactly apply to 
her: " Ye have made the commandment of God of 
none effect by your tradition.^^ For instance, 

1. The doctrine of Purgatory removes the salutary 
dread of eternal woe, and encourages men in the false 
hope of compensating for the sins they may commit in 
this world, by a merely temporary punishment in the 
next: 

2. The doctrine of Indulgences, and of Masses for 
the dead, evidently aids this delusion. By this latter 
figment, a man revelling in sinful pleasures during his 
whole life-time, may console himself with the hope, 
that by a sufficient legacy to the priests, for masses to 
be said after his death, he may escape even the tem- 
porary inflictions of purgatory. And the former false- 
hood teaches the sinner that he may go on in the in- 
dulgence of his lusts throughout the year, so that he 
reserves a sufficient sum to purchase, at Christmas or 
Easter, an indulgence, or oblivion from the church, 
for the entire cancelling of his debt of sin. 

3. By the erection of the saints and the Virgin into 
minor mediators, the resort of the sinner to Christ is 
greatly hindered. But neither the saints nor the 
Virgin can so much as hear the prayers of their 
worshippers, much less answer themj — meanwhile 



SANCTITY OF THE CHUKCH OF ROME. 93 

Christ, the only fountain of grace and of holiness, is 
hidden from the sinner's view, and consequently no 
aid is obtained in his daily warfare against sin and 
the devil. 

4. The enforced celibacy of the clergy has, in all 
ages, and to a fearful extent, been productive of the 
most dreadful immorality. 

5. The seclusion of men and women under monas- 
tic vows has likewise led to the most revolting 
crimes. 

Under the last two heads we shall merely adduce 
one or two testimonies, which will indicate the pre- 
sence of a wide-spread evil. 

Erasmus, himself a Romanist, confesses, of his own 
day, that 

''A number of monasteries are so degenerated, 
that the stews are more chaste, sober, and modest 
than ihey." 

Bianco White, himself also formerly a Romish 
priest, says, 

"Crime makes its way into those recesses, in spite 
of spiked walls and prison gates. This I know, with 
all the certainty which the self-accusation of the 
guilty can give." 

6. The practice of confession, as actually carried 
on under the rules laid down by the highest authori- 
ties in the Romish church, inevitably leads to a fami- 
liarity with vice, which cannot but produce the most 
frightful effects. 

Mr. Nolan, another Romish priest, has lately borne 
witness to this fact. He says, 

" There is not a Romish priest extant, who has 
acted in the capacity of a confessor, but must admit 
the truth of this observation, that each day's confes- 
sions had been the continued causes of unchaste ex- 
citements in his mind. Oh, my friends, there is no 
Romish clergyman, no matter how sanctified he may 
appear in your estimation, but must allow that the 
first subject of his own confession to another priest, 
is an acknowledgment of his having indulged in un- 

7 



94 ESSAYS ON komjlnism: 

chaste thoughts, on account of the indecent recitals 
made before him in the confessional."^ 

But he goes further, and asks, 

*' Has not this practice of inquisitorial debasement 
often exposed the weakness of the penitent, and has 
it not consequently furnished the lecherous disposi- 
tions of many priests with an easier and more appro- 
priate mode of seduction ? Has not the innocence of 
virginity been often despoiled through the confes- 
sional, and has not the morality of otherwise virtuous 
women been frequently corrupted through its lewd- 
ness? Yes! hellish instruction has frequently been 
imparted at this mock tribunal, whilst clerical crimi- 
nality there has often become the substitute for 
priestly absolution. Am I asserting what is false, or 
does not your own knowledge of circumstances bear 
me out in the truth of my observations? Is there a 
single diocese in Ireland but furnishes proofs of 
Romish clergymen who have been suspended for the 
notorious crime of having converted the tribunal of 
confession into an apology for wickedness? The very 
diocese in which I officiated as a Romish clergyman, 
affords sufficient proofs of the correctness of my state- 
ment."t 

These are some of the peculiar inventions and 
practices of the Romish church, all brought into being 
in the days of her greatest power, and all protested 
against alike by the Waldenses and the reformed 
churches. But, we must further add, that in the 
exposition of the Moral Law, that church shows her- 
self to be far from holiness or sanctity. It would not 
be difficult, as we just now remarked, to show that 
she has abrogated every one of the ten command- 
ments. But we will only now advert to two or three 
of the more flagrant instances of this perversion. 

Her divines teach in the Maynooth class-books, 
that small thefts, practised by domestics, or by the 
poor towards the wealthy, are only venial sins: 

* Nolan's Third Letter, p. 23. t Nolan's Third Letter, p. 24. 



SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 95 

They teach, that it is lawful, or rather praise-wor- 
thy, to violate an oath, if the interests of their church 
may be served by such violation: 

They teach, that it is lawful, and in fact a duty to 
take away the lives of those who oppose their church. 

On these three points we must not here enlarge, as 
it would be easy to do. On the last two, indeed, we 
shall have to speak hereafter, when we come to treat 
of the conduct of the Romish church towards Pro- 
testants. The first, however, we must deal with in 
this place, since nothing can be more obviously and 
inherently unholy^ than the whole Romish theory of 
venial sin. 

This theory, too, shows how groundless is the boast 
that their doctrine is still, at this moment, what it 
was in the days of the apostles. No such fancy as 
that of venial sin was ever heard of in the apostolic 
times. 

The Catechism "approved and recommended by 
the four Roman Catholic archbishops of Ireland," 
and published in Dublin in 1833, thus states this doc- 
trine: — 

" Does venial sin deprive the soul of sanctifying 
grace, and deserve everlasting pxinishment?^^ 

"No, but it hurts the soul by lessening its love for 
God; and by disposing it to mortal sin." 

"Where do they go who die in venial sin?" 

"To purgatory." 

And, in the "Abridgment of the Christian doc- 
trine," revised and prescribed by the Right Reverend 
James Doyle, Romish bishop of Kildare, &c., we find 
this question and answer: — 

"By what kinds of sin are the commandments bro- 
ken?" 

"J?y mortal sins only; for venial sins are not, 
strictly speaking, contrary to the end of the com- 
mandments, which is charity." 

Then we come to the distinction between mortal 
and venial sins, in the same Catechism, revised and 
put forth by Dr. Doyle: — 

"When is theft a mortal sin?" 



96 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM; 

" When the thing stolen is of considerable value, 
or causeth a considerable hurt to our neighbour.''^ 

Clearly, then, the servant of a rich man, who should 
merely abstract a moderate sum from his master's 
purse, would only be guilty of a venial sin; and 
venial sin, this Catechism tells us, does not ^mount to 
a breach of the commandments. But we go on: — 

*' When is a lie a mortal sin?'' 

'' When it is any great dishonour to God, or nota* 
able prejudice to our neighbour." 

But in another Catechism, published by the pope's 
legate, for the use of all the churches in France, we 
find this question and answer: — 

" Repeat the sixth commandment (of the church)." 

"Thou shalt eat meat neither Friday nor Saturday." 

'•What does this commandment forbid?'^ 

"Eating meat on Fridays or Saturdays, without 
necessity, under pain oi mortal sin.^^ 

Thus it is taught by the Holy Catholic church, that 
to rob is not a breach of God's commandments, except 
the sum taken is ^' considerable;'' — but that to eat 
meat on Fridays is a mortal sin, and is punished by 
hell-fire to all eternity! 

Well may we apply the words of Christ to such 
teachers: '^ Why do ye transgress the cointnand' 
ments of God by your traditions?'" " Woe unto 
you, hypocrites, for ye pay tithe of mint and anise 
and cummin, and have omitted the iveightier mat- 
ters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.''' " Ye 
7nake clean the outside of the cup and platter, but 
within they are full of extortion and excess." And 
what can be more monstrous than to allege, that a 
church which teaches to all her people such principles 
as these, is to be called holy in her doctrine? 

But it is time we proceeded to Dr. Milner's second 
head, which concerns the Means of Sanctity. This 
part of his case he rests chiefly on the possession of 
seven sacraments by his church, while Protestants 
have only two. Before, however, he can be allowed 
to assume these things to be means of sanctity, he 
must show them to be the ordinances of Christ; other- 



SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 



97 



wise they will come under the apostle's indignant de- 
nunciation; " If ye he dead with Christ, why are ye 
subject to ordinances, after the commandments and 
doctrines of m,en; which things have indeed a show 
(f wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and ne^ 
glecting the body f^ but possess no real value or 
utility. Now we know that Christ instituted Baptism 
and the Supper commemorative of his death, and 
we may be sure, therefore, that these are really 
"means oi sanctity." But what like certainty have 
we of those other five things which the Romish church 
chooses to call "sacraments?" That church makes 
marriage, for instance, a sacrament; and also, orders. 
Now we maintain the religious nature of marriage, and 
cherish it far more than the Romanists, who openly 
and avowedly prefer celibacy; but we find no where 
in holy writ that it is called a sacrament. We hold 
that " marriage is honourable i?i all,'' as St. Paul 
instructs us. They, on the other hand, declare it to 
be, in many cases, criminal and dishonourable. We 
^^ confess our sins one to another,'' as the apostle en- 
joins; but we do not permit unmarried priests to put 
interrogatories to our wives and daughters which it 
''is a shame even to speak of* for their lewdness 
and obscenity. We ordain, by the imposition of 
hands, our clergy; we visit and pray with our sick; 
we preach repentance to all ; but we call none of these 
things sacraments, because they are never so repre- 
sented in holy Scripture. We have then, we trust, in 
them, all that Christ intended to confer by them. The 
Romish church has chosen to swell them out of their 
Scriptural dimensions, and thus to make "a show of 
wisdom in will-ioorship;" but we may reasonably 
doubt if ever the followers of Rome have gained any 
additional "means of sanctity" thereby. And while 
it may well be questioned what advantage, in these 
respects, can belong to the church of Rome, it is suffi- 
ciently clear, that in two most material particulars all 
Protestant churches have a clear and important supe- 

* See the chapter on Confession in Dens' Theology. 



98 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



riority. We allude to the use of the holy Scriptures, 
and the preaching of the gospel. These were the 
two great "means of sanctity'' instituted by the Sa- 
viour, and both of these, in the Romish church, are 
suppressed or limited. " Thy word is a lamp unto 
my feet, and a light unto my path,'' ^ saith the Psalm- 
ist. '^Jill Scripture is projitable,^^ saith Paul, ^'that 
the man of God m,ay be perfect, thoroughly furnish- 
ed to all good xvorksV But no, says the council of 
Trent, "the use of the Scriptures is X3.i\\ex hurtful 
than useful." And in the same manner is preaching 
discountenanced, and whenever used, made only the 
vehicle of some absurd eulogies on the Virgin, or the 
saints, instead of a means of spreading the knowledge 
of that gospel, which is " the power of God unto sal- 
vation.'^^ In these two important points, then, is the 
church of Rome far behind all the Protestant churches, 
in things which are most truly "means of sanctity.'' 

The third point named by Dr. Milner concerns the 
Fruits of Sanctity. On this head he says: "The 
fruits of sanctity are the virtues practised by those 
who are possessed of it. Hence the present question 
is, whether these are to be found, for the most part, 
among the members of the ancient Catholic church, 
or among the different innovators, who undertook to 
reform it in the sixteenth and seventeenth centu- 
ries:"* and he adds, "Protestants are accustomed 
to paint in the most frightful colours, the alleged 
depravity of the church, when Luther erected his 
standard, in order to justify him and his followers in 
their defection from it. But to form a right judgment 
in the case, let them read the works of the contempo- 
rary writers: an A-Kempis, a Gerson, an Antoninus, 
&c.; or let them peruse the lives of St. Vincent Ferrar, 
St. Laurence Justinian, St. Francis Paula, St. Philip 
Neri, St. Cajetan, St. Teresa, St. Francis Xaverius, 
and of those other saints who illuminated the church 
about the period in question. Or let them, from the 
very accounts of Protestant historians, compare, as to 

* Milner's End of Controversy, p. 235. 



SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 99 

religion and morality, Archbishop Cranmer, with his 
rival, Bishop Fisher; Protector Seymour with Chan- 
cellor More; Ann Boleyn with Catharine of Arragon ; 
Martin Luther and Calvin with Francis Xaverius 
and Cardinal Pole; Beza with St. Francis of Sales; 
Queen Elizabeth with Mary Queen of Scots; these 
contrasted characters having more or less relation 
with each other. From such a comparison, I have 
no sort of doubt, what the decision of your friends 
will be concerning them in point of their respective 
holiness."* 

But surely this is a miserably narrow view of the 
question. We are now speaking of results; of the 
general effect of the two systems, Popish and Protest- 
ant, upon mankind. And instead of taking an ex- 
tended retrospect of the facts developed by history, 
Dr. Milner picks out a dozen names on each side, and 
invites a comparison between these. Or at furthest, 
he sends us to " the Lives of the Saints^''' a book full 
of the most incredible romances ; and supposes that 
the sanctity of his church is established by such a 
document as this! Now all such trifling is quite as 
foolish as the conduct of the man, who, wanting to 
sell a house, took a brick out of it, and exhibited it in 
the market. How could any one learn, by merely 
considering the characters of a few selected saints put 
forward by Dr. Milner and Alban Butler, whether 
sanctity were the general condition of the Romish 
church, or the exception to its general condition? 
Assuredly, if the assumption is to be gravely maintain- 
ed, that the church of Rome is distinguished by the 
fruits of sanctity, we must give to that question a far 
more extensive and rational consideration. 

And to do this we ought to compare, 1st. different 
periods of the church's history; and, 2d. the state of 
different countries at the present time. 

Now the history of the Catholic or Universal 
church may be divided into three stages — 1st. be- 
fore the rise of Popery; 2. during its reign and as- 

* Milner's End of Controversy, p. 237. 



100 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM; 

cendency; 3. since its decline, up to the present mo- 
ment. 

The first of these periods may be said to consist 
chiefly of the first four or five centuries. During this 
period there was no pope, and aUhough during the 
latter years of it the pretensions of the bishop of Rome 
began to be magnified, and to put forth a promise 
of the rising papacy, still, during all this period there 
was no one ruler or vicegerent over the church. Nor 
were the doctrines of transubstantiation, purgatory, 
indulgences, the celibacy of the clergy, or image-vvor- 
ship, then received into the church's creed. It was 
indeed the Catholic, not the Papal or Romish church. 

Between the fundamental doctrines of the church 
in those days, and those held by Protestants now, 
there was no essential difference. And in all this 
period, Christianity arose and prospered by the inhe- 
rent brightness which the fruits of the Spirit made to 
shine around it. The purity of her doctrine, and the 
general holiness of her members, agreed together. All 
existing records concur in awarding her the praise 
of showing forth " the fruits of sanctity. ^^ It was 
in those days that nearly all the men, whom both 
Protestants and Romanists admit to have been really 
saints, flourished. These were the days of Ignatius, 
Polycarp, Irenseus, Cyprian, Justin Martyr, Athana- 
sius, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and 
Augustine, names to which the next thousand years 
furnish no equal list. The church, in general, en- 
joyed purity of doctrine, (though towards the end of 
this period superstitions and corruptions began to 
creep in), and, as a natural accompaniment of purity 
of doctrine, she possessed purity of morals, or " the 
fruits of sanctity." 

In the second period, however, from the sixth cen- 
tury to the fifteenth, Rome reigned supreme. The 
papacy advanced with rapid strides, and soon its fatal 
shadow began to overspread the whole Christian 
world. Monkery, will-worship, the setting up new 
mediators, penances, prayers for the dead, and the 
worship of the wafer, now came in. All these, Dr. 



SANCTITY OP THE CHURCH OF ROME. 101 

Milner will tell us, were so many "means of sanctity;" 
but one thing is very clear, that " the fruits of sanc- 
tity" began rapidly to decline and vanish away. 
This we learn, not by the testimony of Protestants, 
but by that of members of the church of Rome. 

Gregory ^ called St. Gregory, who flourished at the 
close of the sixth century, thus writes: — " I think, 
my beloved brethren, that God suffers greater evil 
from none than he does from the priests, when he 
beholds those whom he appointed to correct others, in 
themselves presenting examples of depravity; when 
we sin, who ought to restrain sin?" "The gold is 
obscured, because the life of the priests, formerly 
distinguished by the glory of virtue, has come through 
earthly and vile deeds to the ignominy of contempt. 
The stones of the sanctuary are scattered at the head 
of all the streets, because those who by their mode of 
life and prayer ought always to be within, by their 
wicked manner of life are always abroad."* 

Here we have an unexceptionable witness, one 
acknowledged by the Romanists as the head of the 
church, and successor of St. Peter, testifying two 
things, that the priests were '^ formerly distinguished 
by the glory of virtue," but that they were now fall- 
ing away and becoming vile. 

Passing on still further, we find a Carthusian named 
Laerius, speaking of the ninth century as follows: — 

"0 worst of times, in which holy men failed, 
and truth was rendered scarce by the sons of men." 
" About this time charity waxed very cold in ev- 
ery class of men, and iniquity began unusually to 
abound."! 

The tenth century may be taken to be more espe- 
cially the purely Romish one, for the whole world 
had now become thoroughly subjugated to the pope; 
and Peter Waldo and John Wickliffe had not yet 
made their appearance. Here, then, undisturbed by 
schism, and possessing in their fulness, all those 

* Gregory in Evang. Let. I. Con. 17. 
f Laerius, Fascia, temper, ann. 874. 



102 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

" means of sanctity" of which Dr. Milner boasts, we 
might have expected to see the church shine forth, 
"clear as the sun, fair as the moon, and terrible as an 
army with banners." Yet what says their own eccle- 
siastical historian, Cardinal Baronius, of this period ? 
He speaks as follows — "Behold the nine hundredth 
year of the Redeemer begins, in which a new age 
commences, which by reason of its asperity and bar- 
renness of good, has been wont to be called the iron 
age; and by the deformity of its exuberant evil, the 
leaden age; and by its poverty of writers, the dark 
age^ " To our shame and grief be it spoken, how 
many monsters, horrible to behold, were obtruded into 
that seat (the Papal throne) which is reverenced by 
angels! How many evils originated from them ; how 
many tragedies were perpetrated ! With what filth 
it was her fate to be besprinkled who was without 
spot or wrinkle, — with what stench to be infected, 
whh what impurities to be defiled; and with these 
things to be blackened with perpetual infamy." 

Again, the same writer says, of a. d. 912, "What 
was then the face of the holy Roman church! How 
exceedingly foul was it, when most powerful and 
sordid and abandoned women ruled at Rome, at 
whose will the sees were changed, bishops were pre- 
sented, and what is horrid to hear, and unutterable, 
false pontiffs, their lovers, were intruded into the 
chair of St. Peter." " Thus lust, relying on the secular 
power, and mad and stimulated with the rage of do- 
minion, claimed every thing for itself"* 

Passing on still further, in a. d. 1075, we find one 
of the popes, Gregory the Vllth, thus writing to Hugo, 
Abbot of Clunium — " When I look to the west, the 
east, or the south, I scarcely discover any bishops 
who are lawful, either in their entrance, or their mode 
of life; who govern the people from the love of Christ, 
and not from secular ambition; and among princes, 
I know none who prefer God's honour to their own, 
or righteousness to gain. Those among whom I 

* Baronii Ann. Eccles. An. 900— 912. 



SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 103 

dwell, I argue to be somewhat worse than Jews or 
the Pagans, as I often tell them."* 

Of 1079, Genebrard says, "The priests were of 
most depraved morals, and the sacred things were 
despised by the people. "t 

Pope Innocent III., speaking in the Council of 
Lateran, says — "Evils have entered among the Chris- 
tian people. Faith perishes; religion is disfigured; 
liberty is confounded; justice is trodden underfoot; 
heretics spring up; the wicked rage," &c. 

Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln, speaking before the 
pope in council, a. d. 1250, says, " Bad shepherds, the 
dearth of good ones, and the multiplication of the bad, 
are the cause of the corruption of the Christian faith 
and religion; they are the cause of infidelity, schism, 
heretical wickedness and vicious manners throughout 
the world."t 

Gerson, chancellor of Paris, in a. d. 1409, in a 
speech delivered in the council of Pisa, thus com- 
plains, "But from what roots am I to believe that 
these things have sprung? Truly from the foul pol- 
lutions of the clergy;" who, "by their carnal wisdom 
and foul vices, destroy and pollute the church. "§ 

And thus have we proceeded even to the days 
when Huss and Jerome of Prague actually com- 
menced the Reformation; and through century after 
century do we find it clearly and strongly stated, by 
a succession of Roman Catholic historians and di- 
vines, that the whole church was corrupt, polluted, 
and utterly destitute of that sanctity which, according 
to Dr. Milner, always has dwelt, and always must 
dwell with her. 

Perhaps some Romanist may be ready to exclaim, 
" Why carry us back into all the mire and gloom of 
the dark ages, in order to find ground of crimination 
against our church?" 

But we hardly see how the expression — " the dark 

* Baronii Ann. Eccles. An. 1075. 

t Chron. Geneb. lib. iv. An. 1079. 

t Brown's Fascic. torn. 2, p. 251. 

§ Labbe and Cossart. Anno. 1409. p. 414. 



104 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM, 

ages," can consistently come from the lips of a mem- 
ber of the church of Rome. We, indeed, may well so 
denominate the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries, 
because, on our principles, they were especially so; 
the Romish church having effectally quenched the 
two great means of enlightenment — the preaching of 
the gospel, and the use of those Scriptures which 
were given to be a lamp utito our feet and a light 
unto our path. But with what show of reason can 
papists call that period "a dark age," when their 
church possessed all the advantages in which Dr. 
Milner now exults, and suffered none of those evils 
which he laments as arising from the spread of here- 
sies? During all these centuries she could glory as 
fully as at present, in all those four points which Dr. 
Milner enumerates as establishing her claim to the 
title of "Ao/y." She had the same doctrine which 
she now holds; the same sacraments, penances, 
masses and missals; the same supposed saints; and 
the same alleged miracles. In all respects, then, she 
stood on the same ground as at present, not excepting 
her infallibility, with the additional advantage of 
being unopposed by Lutherans or Protestants of any 
description. To say that the barbarians had overrun 
the empire, is saying nothing; for it is of the church 
that we are now speaking, and her light, had it been 
the pure and holy flame which Dr. Milner describes, 
would only have shone with the greater apparent 
brightness amidst the surrounding darkness. Instead 
of which, it is of the corruption of the church itself 
that we are now speaking. And the one point on 
which we are anxious to fix attention is this, — that 
that very period of time at which the Romish church 
enjoyed the most perfect ascendency, and in which 
" heresy" or Protestantism was scarcely heard of, is 
just that period which all their own historians de- 
scribe as the most corrupt, the most wicked, the most 
appalling. Protestants can account for this with ease; 
it is perfectly consistent with their views, that with- 
out the preaching of the gospel, or the use of the 
written word, the world should fall into utter apos- 



SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 105 

tasy and heathenism ; but how Romanists can recon- 
cile this state of the church with the full possession 
of ihose fan?' things which, to their eyes, prove the 
church to be holi/ — viz, sanctity of doctrine, — the 
means of sanctity, — the fruits of sanctity, and the 
attestation of sanctity, — it is not easy to see. Our first 
remark, however, may now perhaps be admitted to 
be well founded; that on a view of ecclesiastical his- 
tory, it appears that the days of the greatest ascen- 
dency of the church of Rome were also the days of 
the greatest corruption and unholiness, and that the 
spread of Protestantism has been at least accompanied 
by a very great improvement in morals, both in the 
church and in the world. Our second observation is, 
that the two opposing systems ought to be tried, not 
only by a review of different periods of the church's 
history, but also by a comparison of the various 
countries of the world, as they now stand. 

In doing this, it will be quite sufficient to advert 
to facts which are of general notoriety, and which no 
one will venture to dispute: — such as, the general 
character of Protestant nations throughout the world, 
compared with that of those countries which still 
acknowledge the sway of Rome; and, the active 
"fruits of sanctity," or efforts of benevolence which 
are seen in each. 

We ask, then, whether a great and remarkable dif- 
ference does not exist, a difference which strikes every 
impartial and indifferent observer, in the morals, ha- 
bits, liberty, and consequent peace and happiness of 
the Protestant and Roman Catholic states of Europe. 
Does any one think of questioning the fact, for in- 
stance, that the morals of the two neighbouring states 
of Denmark and Sweden are of a far higher cast than 
those of Spain and Portugal; the first two being al- 
most exclusively Protestant; the latter two as exclu- 
sively popish? Or, to compare two countries closely 
adjoining, will it be denied that between Holland and 
Belgium, an equally perceptible difference exists, and 
as decidedly in favour of the Protestant state? 

But let us take a general glance over Europe at the 



106 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM : 

present instant, and remark the striking contrast it 
presents. Popery furnishes to its followers, accord- 
ing to Dr. Milner, a holy doctrine, means of holiness, 
the fruits of holiness, and a divine attestation of holi- 
ness; in all which things Protestants are deficient. 
Is it not extraordinary, then, that with all these vast 
advantages, and with the presence of Christ as pa- 
pists tell us, always with their church, it should so 
happen that at this moment every Protestant state in 
Europe should be enjoying peace, and safety, and 
internal prosperity; while every Popish state is, more 
or less, torn with intestine divisions, harassed with 
revolutionary agitators, or filled with alarms of some 
such description. So clearly does this rule hold, in 
every case, that could a stranger to this globe be sud- 
denly made acquainted with the state and prospects 
of all the nations of Europe, he could not fail to ex- 
claim, without meddling with the religious question 
at all; "One thing I can see with a certainty, which 
admits of no doubt; that the chief evil to be avoided 
among nations, is Popery; since, wherever it exists, 
there is misery and discord, and wherever it has no 
footing, there is usually peace and prosperity." 

But there is another circumstance which, under 
this head, may justly claim our attention; we mean, 
those "fruits of sanctity" which manifest the love 
of our neighbour, and are called by men in general, 
acts of benevolence. 

We are aware, indeed, that the Romish church, 
having received of the wealthy in various ages, large 
endowments and estates for the use of the poor and 
destitute, does, in all parts of the world, ostentatiously 
assume the office of the general almoner. But we are 
not, either in this or the former points, confining our 
view to the clergy only. We look for " the fruits of 
sanctity" among the people at large. And we say, 
in the first place, that in Protestant countries the care 
of the poor and needy, of the widow and fatherless, 
is always a matter which attracts more attention than 
in Roman Catholic states. " Let the traveller," says 
one who had himself witnessed what he described, 



SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 107 

"start from the Rock of Lisbon, and proceed through 
every part of Spain, Italy and France, and the wretch- 
edness and beggary which prevails in every town, 
village, &c. can only be appreciated by those who 
have witnessed such scenes.'^* On the other hand, 
in Denmark, Sweden, Holland, England, and Protes- 
tant Germany, and the United States of North Ame- 
rica, the sacred duty of providing for the poor and 
destitute is sedulously attended to. Of Holland, in- 
deed, it is recorded that when one of the courtiers 
of Charles H. jestingly anticipated the destruction 
of Amsterdam, then threatened by the French, and 
basely betrayed by Charles, — the king, for once, 
checked his mirth, by the remark, "I am of opinion 
that God will preserve Amsterdam from being de- 
stroyed, if it were only for the great charity they have 
for their poor."t 

But the same remark applies to the religious bene- 
volence of Romanists and Protestants ; we mean, to 
their respective exertions to Christianize the world. 
The church of Rome has, indeed, done much; and at 
this moment there is a sort of college, de propaganda 
fide, in operation among them. But v/here are the 
** fruits of sanctity," in this particular, among the 
Roman Catholics generally. Protestant England 
alone raises more than ^6500,000 every year, — for 
this noblest of all purposes.^ Does Roman Catholic 
Europe, with its vast empires of France and Spain, 
Italy and Austria, — does it raise even a tenth of this 
sum for the conversion of heathen nations? We trow 
not. The Protestant churches have at this moment 
many hundreds of labourers employed among the 
heathen in every quarter of the globe: have the Ro- 
manists as many scores? 

In these remarks we are not forgetting the great 

* Mitford's Tour, vol. ii. p. 76. 

t Kerr's Remarks on Holland, part iii. p. 34. 

\ A single association in the TJ. S. A., viz. the American Board of 
Commissioners for foreign missions, expended for the same purpose, 
$265,774 during the year 1839; to say nothing of the Presbyterian, 
Episcopal, Baptist and Methodist missions. [Am. Edit.] 



108 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM : 

expenditure which is evidently going on in England, 
and the United States, in the erection of Romish 
chapels, colleges, &c. This peculiar effort is easily- 
accounted for, both in its object and in its sources. 
The priests begin to entertain a hope of re-conquer- 
ing England for the holy see, and of bringing the 
United States under papal sway. Their exertions, 
consequently, are redoubled. And the doctrines of 
their church, as to the descent of even real Christians 
into purgatory, and as to the power of the priesthood 
to draw them out of that place, are obviously well 
calculated to give them vast power over the purses of 
the frightened and the dying. But there is nothing 
in all this in the least resembling the spontaneous 
contributions of Protestants, to send the gospel to 
the Hottentots, to the Esquimaux, and to the South 
Sea Islands. 

Surely, then, it must be admitted that with respect 
to the fruits of sanctity, or the evidences of practi- 
cal holiness among the people, the balance inclines 
very greatly to our side. On a comparison of peri- 
ods, we find that the most purely Popish times have 
been also times of the greatest corruption, vice, and 
moral darkness; and on a comparison of countries, 
we find that Protestantism and morality, Romanism 
and immorality seem to be always closely connected. 
Then passing from the general condition of the people 
to the acts and doings which might be traced and com- 
pared, we find the temporal interests of the poor al- 
ways better attended to, and the eternal interests of the 
heathen exciting far greater exertions, among Protes- 
tants than among Papists. On the whole, then, we 
consider, that Dr. Milner, in passing over this subject, 
as he does, in a very brief notice of two or three pages, 
shows that he was aware of being on unsafe ground; 
and that in that feeling he was quite correct. There 
remains, therefore, now only his fourth point, that of 
the Jlttestation of Sanctity, to be considered. 

On this point the Dr. says, " The learned Protes- 
tant advocates of revelation, such as Grotius, Abba- 
die, Paley, Watson, &c. in defending this common 



SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 109 

cause against infidels, all agree in the sentiment of 
the last named, that ^miracles are the criterion of 
truth.' Accordingly they observe, that both Moses, 
Exod. iv. xiv., Numb. xvi. 29, and Jesus Christ, John 
X. 37, 38. xiv. 12. xv. 24, constantly appealed to the 
prodigies they wrought, in attestation of their divine 
mission and doctrine. Indeed the whole history of 
God's people, from the beginning of the world down 
to the time of our blessed Saviour, was nearly a con- 
tinued series of miracles. The latter, so far from 
confining the power of working them to his own per- 
son or time, expressly promised the same, and even a 
greater power of this nature, to his disciples, Mark 
xvi. 17. John xiv. 12. For both the reasons here 
mentioned, namely, that the Almighty was pleased 
to illustrate the society of his chosen servants, both 
under the law of nature and the written law, with 
frequent miracles, and that Christ promised a con- 
tinuance of them to his disciples under the new law, 
we are led to expect, that the true church should be 
distinguished by miracles, wrought in her, and in 
proof of her divine origin. Accordingly, the fathers 
and doctors of the Catholic church, amongst other 
proofs in her favour, have constantly appealed to the 
miracles by which she is illustrated, and reproached 
their contemporary heretics and schismatics with the 
want of them."* 

Dr. Milner, then, gravely claims for his church the 
possession of miraculous powers through the whole 
of the middle ages, and even down to the present 
time. He recounts especially the miracles of Augus- 
tine of Canterbury in the sixth century, of Bernard 
in the twelfth, and of Francis Xaverius, and Philip 
Neri in the sixteenth; and he asks, " Will you say 
that all the holy fathers, up to the apostolic age, and 
that all the ecclesiastical writers down to the Refor- 
mation, and since that period, that all the Catholic 
authors, pii-lates, and officials, have been in a league- 
to deceive mankind?" 

* Milner's End of Controversy, p. 246, 247. 
8 



110 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

Now we answer that question without the least 
hesitation. We know, on the surest possible evidence, 
that by Christ and his apostles " the hlind received 
their sight, the lame ivalked, the lepers were cleansed, 
the deaf heard, and the dead were raised up.^^ We 
know also on sufficient testimony, that these powers 
of healing, did not instantaneously cease, but were 
continued for some considerable period after the 
departure of the apostles. But we see, too, that no 
such powers are possessed by any church whatever 
in the present day. If the Romish church could give 
sight to ''one born blind, ^^ ox raise on his feet one 
''who had iiever walked,^^ or call from the tomb one 
who had "been dead four days''' — then indeed tlie con- 
troversy between herself and the Protestant churches 
would assume a different character. But she has 
done no such thing. For the last three hundred years, 
during which the prevalence of Protestantism has 
made it most desirable for her, if possible, to show 
some such " attestation of sanctity," — during all this 
period God would seem, even on her own showing, to 
have deserted her; for those wonders which her 
chroniclers record, through all the middle ages, en- 
tirely cease when we come into the light of Protes- 
tant days. And as to the question, '' Whether all the 
Catholic authors, prelates, and officials have been in a 
league to deceive mankind?" — we merely remark, 
that when Genebrard, one of their own chroniclers, 
declares that " for nearly one hundred and fifty years, 
about fifty popes deserted wholly the virtue of their 
predecessors, being apostate rather than apostolical," 
and that " the priests were of most depraved mor- 
alsf* and when Baronius, another of their histori- 
ans, and a cardinal, tells us that the government of 
the church was in the hands of" horrible monsters;'' 
— when, we repeat, we find this testimony given by 
their own historians, and then meet with the most 
marvellous and often the most absurd stories of mira- 
cles performed, even at periods when it is thus uni- 

* Genebrard, Chron. 1. iv. An. 1079. 



SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. Hi 

versally admitted that the foulest corruptions over- 
spread the church, — what conchision can we come to, 
but that which Dr. M. suggests, that the legend-wri- 
ters and their officials were " in a league to deceive 
mankind?" Nor can we forget that most of these 
miracle-workers had an end in view, — since by such 
stories the credit of their shrines and relics was raised, 
and gifts and offerings flowed in upon them, in exact 
proportion to the wonders said to be wrought. At 
the period of the Reformation, many of these things 
were searched into, and their fraud made manifest. 
But we must proceed to inquire, what says Dr. Mil- 
ner on the point of this " attestation of sanctity," as 
possessed by his church at the present moment. 

He says, " the church never possessed miraculous 
powers, in the sense of most Protestant writers, so 
as to be able to effect cures or other supernatural 
events at her mere pleasure: for even the apostles 
could not do this: as we learn from the history of the 
lunatic child, Matt, xvii. 16. But this I say, that the 
Catholic church, being always the beloved spouse of 
Christy Rev. xxi. 9, and continuing at all times to 
bring forth children of heroical sanctity, God fails not 
in this, any more than in past ages, to illustrate her 
and them by unquestionable miracles."* 

In support of this assumption, he narrates, 1. The 
case of Joseph Lamb, who having fallen from a hay- 
rick, on the 12th of August, 1814, at Eccles, in Lan- 
cashire, so hurt himself that he could neither walk 
nor stand without crutches, till the 2d of October, 
when he was taken to Garswood, and signed on his 
back with the sign of the cross, by the dead hand of 
F. Arrowsmith, who was executed at Lancaster in 
the time of Charles the First. On which being done, 
feeling a particular sensation and total change in him- 
self, he exclaimed to his wife, " Mary^ I can ivalkV^ 
which he forthwith did, and has continued to do ever 
since. 

2. Mary Wood, who on the 15th of March, 1809, 

* End of Controversy, p. 260. 



112 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

cut her arm so seriously by a broken pane of glass, 
as to injure the tendons, and to deprive her of the 
use of it. But on applying a piece of moss from St. 
Winefrid's well, on the 6th of August, she found, the 
next morning, that she could dress herself, having 
regained the full use of her limb. 

3. Winefrid White, who had suffered from a cur- 
vature of the spine, and a hemiplegia, or a paralytic 
affection, and who, on the 28th of June, 1805, on 
bathing in St. Winefrid's well, found herself free 
from all her pains and disabilities, and able to run or 
walk like any other young person. 

Such is the whole array of evidence which Dr. M. 
can muster up, as of modern times, and within our 
own reach ; — but he also refers, at some length, to the 
miracles wrought by Xaverius in India, and Lewis 
Bertrand in South America. 

These latter, however, belong to the sixteenth cen- 
tury; and we must be excused, at this time of day, 
from going into a very minute examination of legends 
imported from countries ten or twelve thousand miles 
distant, and of the date of two or three centuries back. 
It will be enough for us to examine Dr. Milner's evi- 
dence of the "divine attestation," as applying to our 
own times. And the facts he adduces, it seems, are 
merely these ; — a man had fallen from a hay-rick, 
and hurt his back, and being weak and lame, was 
restored to health and strength by the application of 
a dead man's hand : A girl had cut her arm, and felt 
a difficulty or disability in using it ; but by the appli- 
cation of a piece of moss was enabled to use it as 
before: Another girl suffering under a diseased spine, 
was so strengthened by once plunging into St. Wine- 
frid's fountain, as to be "able to walk, run, or jump, 
like any other young person." 

Now such stories as these hardly seem to require a 
word of comment; for our readers will for the most 
part be well aware that several supposed miracles of 
the very same description as these, ^vere wrought by 
the disciples of Mr. Irving about four years since. 
And the exact similarity of the cases proves the 



SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 113 

identity of the delusion in both instances. The Irving- 
ite miracles exactly resembled the Romish ones. In 
all of them, there was a patient labouring under a 
supposed disability to walk, to stand, to move her 
arm, &c.; and in each of them some mighty supernatu- 
ral agency is ostentatiously set to work, to remove 
this disability. The disability is removed ; the patient 
walks, or stretches forth his arm, and cries of a mira- 
cle resound on every side. 

In all this, two things are overlooked: 1. The power 
of fancy; and 2dly, the character of the miracles 
recorded in Holy Scripture. On the first point, we 
shall merely allude to one fact, perfectly well known 
to the medical profession, which casts a strong light 
on the subject. 

A few years since, a new invention was greatly 
trumpeted about in England, for the cure of persons 
who from various causes had become crippled in 
their limbs; it was called "the metallic tractors;" and 
far more miracles were wrought by it, in the course 
of a year or two, than Dr. Milner has been able to 
muster in support of the Romish church, on a review 
of a quarter of a century. So great was the excite- 
ment caused by this new discovery, that in one im- 
portant city, much frequented by persons sufiering 
from such ailments, the medical practitioners were on 
all hands beset by applications, either to adopt the 
new invention, or to give some sufficient reason for 
rejecting it. 

Thus called upon, the physicians decided upon giv- 
ing to " the metallic tractors" a full and fair trial. 
They proceeded, on a given day, to meet in the princi- 
pal infirmary or hospital of the place, in order then and 
there to apply these " tractors" to all the sick and 
lame there lying, who were afflicted with any of the 
disorders which the said " tractors" were understood 
to be able to cure. The diseased persons were made 
betimes acquainted with the new remedy to be ap- 
plied, and looked forward with hope to their probable 
cure. The result of the trial, however, exceeded all 
expectation. Men incurably lame for half their lives; 



114 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM ; 

cripples who had been bed-ridden for many years; 
helpless objects who had dragged on a miserable 
existence for a quarter of a century, were seen pacing 
and almost leaping about, in transports of joy and 
gratitude. Never was there so complete a triumph! 

Unhappily, however, for the fame and profit of the 
inventor, it turned out the next day, that the physi- 
cians had rightly appreciated the whole matter, and 
had shown that the real virtue of these wonderful 
" tractors" was no secret to them. It was frankly 
explained, that in the preceding day's trial, the things 
actually employed, were nothing more than some 
pieces of painted wood, ingeniously contrived to imi- 
tate the original invention, and that not a single 
"tractor," nor instrument, nor any medical or surgi- 
cal means whatever were employed; nor was any 
one thing concerned in the matter, but all-powerful 
fancy I 

And thus has it been with other quackeries, beside 
"the metallic tractors," and "St. Winefrid's well." 
Only take a person suffering from paralytic or ner- 
vous affections, and who has gradually become, or 
fancied that he has become, unable to move this or 
that limb; and tell him that by some extraordinary 
means he is to be suddenly cured; and in all proba- 
bility, if you gain his implicit credence, something 
very much like a sudden and miraculous cure will 
follow. The mind acting in conjunction with the 
will, powerfully influences the whole machine. The 
nervous system still remains an unsolved problem, 
but its intimate connection with the hopes and fears, 
the alarms and determinations of the mind, is so far 
discernible as to render the things we are now con- 
sidering no longer matter of wonder. And observe, 
that throughout the whole, whether in the affair of 
the Irvingite miracles, or those warranted by Dr. 
Milner, or those performed by " the metallic trac- 
tors," it is always a lame person, one suffering from 
a contracted limb, or from some disordered functions, 
that is thus suddenly cured. A clear and indisputable 
miracle — one which no power but a divine and super- 



SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 115 

natural power could work, has never been produced 
by any of these pretenders. Let us see a man " born 
blind j'^ endowed with sight, or one who "never had 
walked,'^ gifted with the power to move hke other 
men; or one who " had been dead four days," raised 
from the tomb, and then we shall be dumb with awe, 
or only vocal in admiration. But stiffened arms re- 
stored by a piece of holy moss, or a crick in the back 
cured by a dead man's hand, and all the other stories 
of a similar kind, only awaken feelings of pity for the 
understandings of the deluded, or of disgust at those 
who thus practise on their weakness. We therefore 
cannot admit Dr. Milner's miracles to the rank which 
he claims for them, but must deny that in this as- 
sumed " attestation of sanctity," the Dr. has estab- 
lished the least particle of his case. 

Ttius, then, have we concluded this branch of the 
subject, — the claim of the church of Rome to the title 
of Holy. We have been obliged to deny each one 
of the four particulars into which this claim is divided. 
We believe that her doctrines are not holy — but, in 
those points especially in which they differ from the 
Scriptures and the Protestant faith, exceedingly iin- 
holy: we consider that the means of attaining holi- 
ness, through Latin prayers perpetually repeated, 
bodily inflictions, and indulgences purchased by mo- 
ney, are far inferior to the Protestant means, of 
hearing the gospel and reading God's holy word. 
We must maintain also, that both the history of the 
past, and an impartial view of the present, equally 
show that the fruits of holiness abound more among 
Protestants than among Catholics: and as to the al- 
leged divine attestation of her holiiiess, conveyed 
by miracles, we deny that the least ground for such 
an assumption can be shown to exist. In the article 
of holiness, then, as v.'-ell as in that of unity, we feel 
that Dr. Milner has wholly failed to make out his 
case. 



116 



VI.— THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH. 



CATHOLICITY. 



The course of the argument brings us necessarily- 
back to a part of the subject with which we have 
already dealt; but this is hardly to be regretted, in- 
asmuch as every point in this great controversy ad- 
mits of being viewed in a variety of lights. The 
" mark" of Catholicity, as belonging exclusively 
to the church of Rome, is better stated by Dr. Wise- 
man than by Dr. Milner. 

The former, Dr. Milner, says, "The true church is 
Catholic, or Universal, in three several respects; as 
to persons — as to places — and as to time. It con- 
sists of the most numerous body of Christians; it is 
more or less diffused wherever Christianity prevails; 
and it has visibly existed ever since the days of the 
apostles."* 

But this must be admitted to be reasoning of the 
weakest order. " The most numerous hodyP^ What! 
is truth to be discovered, then, by a mere appeal to 
numbers? If so, why not embrace the theology of 
Confucius, who, in one single empire, has more fol- 
lowers than popery can reckon all over the globe? 
And does Dr. M. seriously mean us to understand, 
that if Protestantism were to prevail in one or two 
more kingdoms than at present, and thereby throw 
the balance openly and decidedly (as it now is in 
truth and fact) against popery, it would then have 
become in his eyes the Catholic faith? Yet if he 
does not mean this, — what does he mean, when he 

*Milner's End of Controversy, 18mo. p. 284. 



CATHOLICITY. 



117 



asserts that the church of Rome is the Catholic 
church, because she has ^' the most numerous body" 
of followers? 

But the very fact itself is more easily assumed 
than proved. How is it made out that Rome has 
*'the greatest number" of adherents? By putting 
down half a dozen of the chief kingdoms of Europe, 
as France, 30,000,000; Spain, 20,000,000; Italy, 
18,000,000, and thus soon running up an account, 
on paper, of a hundred millions of Romanists. But 
what does the Romanism of France amount to? To 
nothing better than a tolerant, indifferent sort of 
Atheism. And what of Spain? Did not Blanco 
White confess, a dozen years since, that the bulk of 
the Spanish priests were merely concealed infidels; 
and is not the fruit of their infidelity now showing 
itself, by the animosity of the popular party to the 
priests, the monks, and, in fact, to all religion? And 
yet it is only hy calculating the populations of these 
great nations as wholly "Catholic," that the Romish 
controversialists are able to give some colour to their 
assumption, that the adherents to Rome are still "the 
most numerous body of Christians." 

But Dr. Milner's proposition has another feature. 
He proves the "Catholicism" of his church's system 
by the fact, that her faith "is more or less diffused 
wherever Christianity prevails?" 

Now no one will deny, that as Rome has still six 
or eight European nations in her communion, and as 
several of these have colonies, and carry on commer- 
cial transactions with every country on the globe, it 
must very naturally follow that some sort of Roman- 
ism is to be heard of wherever any kind of civiliza- 
tion, or any profession of Christianity exists. But 
this no more makes the church of Rome the Catholic 
or Universal Church, than the fact that English ships 
and English merchants are found in every port in 
the known world, makes England the head of a 
fifth universal empire. The circumstance is easily 
accounted for, and proves nothing. The English 
tongue, and the Protestant English church, is now 



118 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

known in all parts of the world; but who ever thinks 
of calling the church of England "Me Catholic 
church" on that account? 

But Dr. Wiseman seems to be aware of the weak- 
ness of his predecessor's arguments on this head, and 
he certainly supplies their place by reasonings of a 
far more artful and effective character. He thus 
defends the position: — " Upon what grounds does the 
Catholic church arrogate to itself to be this one 
church? Why should not these prerogatives reside 
in the church of England? Has not it also a claim 
to this authority? Why not in the Greek church, or 
in various other oriental churches? Why not in the 
collection of all churches together? On a former 
occasion, I showed you, likewise, (and I quoted even 
the authority of a learned divine of the church of 
England, to prove it acknowledged) that even up to 
a late period, the Catholic church was, as we believe 
it now, essentially the true church of Christ, — that it 
was impossible to fix the period when it lost that 
title, other than about the period of the Reformation 
— that is, at the celebration of the Council of Trent. 
Others, however, put the period of its supposed de- 
fection much farther back. But at present, this mat- 
ters not: for both parties concede the important fact, 
that we have prior existence; for both consider us as 
essentially connected with the foregoing and well- 
entitled state of the church of Christ ; and the only 
question is, when we lost our right to that title. If 
we seek an illustration in the Greeks and their 
church, we find a manifest connexion and commu- 
nion with us up to a certain time: they then, by a 
formal act, throw off their allegiance, and erect them- 
selves into an independent church; and while all this 
happens, we move not, we remain in the same posi- 
tion afterwards as we did before they left us. In that 
act, did they acquire new claims, or did we, by it, 
forfeit those which we had before ? Coming down 
to a later period, it is acknowledged that the church 
of England separated from that of Rome; various 
reasons have been brought to prove that the separa- 



CATHOLICITY. 119 

tion was lawful, and to justify the grounds on which 
it took place. There is, consequently, an acknow- 
ledgment that a change of state occurred in her, while 
we remain still in possession of whatever rights we 
previously held; and strong positive arguments must 
be brought to prove that we are not still what we 
were acknowledged to be previously — the church of 
Christ. We cannot be called upon for reasons why 
we are to be reckoned still the same. We stand upon 
our rights; as the successor to a dynasty claims the 
crown of his ancestors, or as any member of the 
aristocracy in this country holds the lands of his 
ancestors legally given to them, from whom he in- 
herits them: whatever branches of the family may 
have separated from it, or accepted other claims or 
prospects, that cannot shake the right line of succes- 
sion of which he is the representative."^ 

This is a higher tone, and a more imposing plea, 
than that of Dr. Milner : — but though it is not quite 
so obviously vain and childish, it will be found of 
little weight, when seriously examined. 

We are asked. If the church which is now the 
church of Rome, once was rightly called " the Catho- 
lic (or Universal) Churchf^ when did it lose its 
claim to that title? We answer, when it ceased to he 
the Catholic or universal church; when it no longer 
comprehended in its circle the whole Christian world; 
when, in short, \X became "the church of Bomef^ a 
a title which is wholly incompatible with that of 
" Catholicf^ inasmuch as what is particular and 
liynited^ is in its very nature opposed to what is gent- 
ral and without limits. 

The simple facts of the case are these: During the 
earlier ages of the Christian church, the followers of 
Christ, in all countries, preserved a feeling of brother- 
hood and common connexion, founded on the Scrip- 
tural basis of " calling no man master on earths 
The bishops of Africa could meet, and discuss and 
regulate their own affairs; the bishops of Gaul could 

* Dr. Wiseman's Ninth Lecture, pp. 314—316. 



120 ESSAYS ON eomanism: 

assemble and do the same; and each of these national 
synods claimed the common right of differing from, 
or assenting to, the opinions of Rome, or of Antioch, 
or of any other part of the church, as seemed to them 
needful and right. Of this independence the acts and 
the writings of Irengeus, Cyprian, Hilary, and many 
others of the fathers might be adduced in proof. And 
during its continuance, the Universal or Catholic 
church continued indeed One; no part thereof tyran- 
nizing over and assuming '^dominion over thefaiW^ 
of any other part. The only distinction, therefore, 
which could be made, during all this period, was, be- 
tween the One Catholic or Universal church, whose 
faith was built on Holy Scripture, — and the various 
sects of heretics, who ever and anon broke forth, all 
refusing obedience to the written word, and broach- 
ing fancies which the church at large knew nothing 
of, and which, when heard by it, were by common 
consent rejected. 

But after a while, the encroachments of the Roman 
bishops brought on a division. "• Exalting himself 
above all that is called God, or that is worshipped,''^ 
as has been foretold by the Apostle Paul, the bishop 
of Rome demanded the absolute obedience of the 
churches, not only of Italy, but of Asia and the whole 
world. This claim, wholly unknown and unimagined 
during the first five centuries, and which by Gregory 
I. (a former bishop of Rome), had been vehemently 
denounced, and declared to be a sign and mark of 
antichrist — this claim at once divided and split up 
into divisions the Catholic church. The heads of the 
eastern and western divisions anathematized each 
other. Both of these reckoned among their followers 
many hundreds of bishops, and whole nations of pro- 
fessors of Christianity. The bishop of Rome then 
severed himself from one half of the Christian world; 
made his church from that time forward "the church 
of Rome,''^ and thus ceased to be in communion with 
any thing more than a section, a division, of the 
Catholic or universal church. In reply to Dr. Wise- 
man's demand, therefore, " When his church ceased 



CATHOLICITY. 121 

to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church?" 
we answer, without hesitation, There was a time 
when the church was one, visibly one, and when no 
division or section of it asserted a right to rule over 
the rest. After this, another state of things succeed- 
ed, in which, by the assertion of such a claim, put 
forward by Rome, the visible church was split into 
parts. The church of Rome was one of these parts, 
and so soon as it became visibly a part, a section, just 
so soon did every individual member of it lose all 
right to say, " My church is the Catholic church." 

Let us observe also the insidious manner in \vhich 
Dr. Wiseman assumes the whole point in question, 
in speaking of the separation which took place, of the 
eastern from the western churches. He says, " If we 
seek an illustration in the Greeks and their church, 
we find a manifest connexion and communion with 
us (Rome) up to a certain time; they then, by a 
formal act, throw off their allegiance, and erect them- 
selves into an independent church; and while all this 
happens, we move not, we remain in the same posi- 
tion afterwards as we did before." Now this we must 
observe, is any thing but an ingenuous and honest 
statement. The facts of the case are notorious. Du- 
ring several centuries the more ambitious prelates, 
both of Rome and Constantinople, aimed at assuming 
a supremacy over the universal church. The first 
open attempt was made by the eastern patriarch. In 
A. D. 588, John,surnamed the Faster, then primate of 
the east, assumed the title of (Ecumenical or Univer- 
sal bishop. Gregory, called the Great, then bishop 
of Rome, resisted this assumption. In one of his 
letters these words occur, — " I confidently say, that 
whosoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires 
to be called so, in his pride is the forerunner of Anti- 
christ." And both in this passage and in the whole 
controversy, it is abundantly apparent that Gregory 
claims for himself no authority or supremacy over the 
easterns, but merely protests against the patriarch of 
Constantinople, or any other bishop, eastern or wes- 



122 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

tern, setting himself up as a visible head and ruler of 
the whole church. 

In two or three centuries after, however, the eas- 
terns had grown weaker and less capable of main- 
taining the warfare, and the bishops of Rome more 
powerful and more ambitious. That verv claim 
which Gregory had put from him as impious, in 
A. D. 590, one of his successors, in a. d. 862, openly- 
asserted, setting aside the election of a patriarch of 
Constantinople, and excommunicating him and his 
abettors. This claim was never afterwards in the 
slightest degree relaxed, and after two centuries more 
of contention, in a. d. 1054, a mutual and final ana- 
thema concluded the struggle. When, therefore, Dr. 
Wiseman chooses to say, that ^' the Greeks threw off 
their allegiance and erected themselves into an inde- 
pendent church, while we (of Rome) remained just in 
the same position as we did before they left us," — he 
wilfully overlooks three material points. 1. That in 
the time of Gregory and John the Faster, the Greeks 
evidently were as independent of Rome as Rome was 
of Constantinople. 2. That no allegiance could then 
be imagined to be due to Rome, when Gregory claims 
none, but merely protests that he owes no subjection 
to the Greek patriarch. 3. That, therefore, the Greeks 
could not afterwards " erect themselves into an inde- 
pendent church," having been independent of Rome 
from the very first; nor could they "throw off an al- 
legiance" which they had never known; still less 
could the Romish bishops of the ninth century, who 
assumed the title of " universal bishop," be said to 
" remain in the same position" as Gregory, who de- 
clared that any one pretending to that title was "a 
forerunner of antichrist." All the colouring, there- 
fore, with which Dr. W. aims to tinge this transaction 
must be washed away: and then we come to the 
plain matter of fact, that the ecclesiastical heads of 
the eastern and western churches, after long conten- 
tions for superiority, at last irreconcilably quarrelled, 
and divided the visible church. But then it must be 



CATHOLICITY. 1 23 

borne in mind, that neither the one nor the other had 
the least right to say, ^'we, and we alone, are the 
church, and all those people who refuse to submit to 
us, are heathens and reprobates.'^ 

But we must not overlook the last clause in Dr. 
Wiseman's argument. He says, "We stand upon our 
rights; as the successor to a dynasty claims the crown 
of his ancestors, or as any member of the aristocracy 
in this country holds the lands of his ancestors 
legally given to them, from whom he inherits them; 
whatever branches of the family may have separated 
from it, or accepted other claims or prospects, that 
cannot shake the right line of succession, of which he 
is the representative." 

Now here the Dr. mixes up two arguments, one of 
which belongs to a later stage of our inquiry. When 
he talks of hereditary rights, of a crown descending 
in succession, and the like, we must bear in mind that 
he is assuming that which will shortly come under 
discussion, namely, the claim of the alleged success- 
ors of Peter to rule over the whole Christian church. 
While this point remains open for future considera- 
tion, we cannot allow the whole matter in dispute to 
be taken for granted; or admit, without protest, the 
claim put in by Dr. Wiseman. 

But with regard to the rest of the above statement, 
we may ask. How does Dr. W. contrive to apply his 
own supposed case to the matter now before us? He 
says, " Whatever branches of the family may have 
separated from it, or accepted other claims or pros- 
pects, that cannot shake the right line of succession, 
of which he is the representative.^' Now no one 
wishes to shake " the right line of succession'^ of the 
pope, or to deny — for the purpose of this question — 
that he sits in the chair founded by Peter. We Pro- 
testants set up no rival claim — no pretender to the 
popedom. We dispute not the succession, but we 
object to the assumption of an authority which Peter 
himself never thought of claiming. Dr. Wiseman 
misses his point. The question is not as to the pope's 
succession; but as to the attempted excommunication 



1 24 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM I 

by the see of Rome, of all who do not humbly sub- 
mit to its dominion. Therefore, when Dr. W. says, 
"Whatever branches of the family may have separa- 
ted from it, that cannot shake the right Hne of succes- 
sion,'^ — we reply. No! nor does their separation from 
the elder branch (even if if be the elder) deprive 
them of their blood, or their natural rights. What 
" separation" or other circumstance can entitle one 
branch of a family to set itself up as the whole family, 
and to declare all the rest ipso facto alienated and 
cut off? The elder branch of the royal family of 
France, for instance, may have a better title to the 
throne than that member who now occupies it; but 
how could the senior line acquire the right or the 
power to say to the younger, " You are for ever cut 
off and destroyed. You are no longer a part of the 
Bourbon family. JVe alone are the Bourbons, and 
the blood royal in future shall be held to run in our 
veins exclusively." 

No ! Dr. Wiseman's illustration is a most unfortu- 
nate one. The great Head of the church has, in 
every land and in every Christian community, some 
sincere followers; who constitute unitedly the invisi- 
ble " Catholic church." The visible church Catholic, 
if such a body can be supposed to exist, must be form- 
ed of all existing churches " in which the pure word 
of God is preached, and the sacraments duly admin- 
istered." And even were Dr. Wiseman to succeed 
in establishing the right of the supposed successor of 
Peter to a primacy over all Christian churches, even 
that would not warrant an "anathema" on such bod- 
ies of Christians as were not convinced of the justness 
of his claim. " He that believeth on the Son of God 
hath everlasting life, and shall not come into con- 
demnation^''' Sdiiih. the Scripture; and while this word 
remains true, it cannot be possible for any ruler of the 
visible church to cancel the promise of Christ, and to 
make submission to him, essential to salvation ! Dr. 
Wiseman has no more right to say, " Ours is the 
Catholic church; and all who are not with us, are out 
of that church, — in other words, are heathens and 



CATHOLICITY. 125 

publicans," than any one member of a family, whe- 
tlier the elder or the younger, would have to cancel 
his father's will, and of his own sole pleasure, to dis- 
inherit all those of his brethren who refused to render 
him the most entire obedience. 

After all, then, the subtle reasonings of Dr. Wise- 
man succeed no better than the blunt demands of Dr. 
Milner. The alleged " mark'^ of Catholicity, as 
borne by the Romish church, comes at last to noth- 
ing more than this, — as Dr. Milner had in the first in- 
stance stated, — that "it consists of the tnost numer- 
ous body of Christians." 

Externally, perhaps, and judging by outward show 
alone, this fact may be admitted, but between univer- 
sality and a mere majority, or plurality, there is a 
wide distinction. And let the Romanist remember, 
too, that there is one very awkward consequence 
connected with the resting their case on this single 
circumstance. If the Romish church is to be decla- 
red the Catholic church, — and Dr. Milner so argues^ 
— on the ground of her having " the most numerous 
body^' of adherents, — then what are we to say of 
that period when^she unquestionably had not so 
numerous a body as the rival church? The Greek 
church in its first strength unquestionably outnum- 
bered the Italian section. Was, then, the eastern 
body, as 'Uhe most numerous," the Catholic church 
of that day? And if not — why not? Or was the 
Romish church then the Catholic church; though it 
numbered only a portion, and the smaller portion, of 
the great body of Christians? 

These difficulties, and others which will naturally 
suggest themselves, must show, to any impartial 
inquirer, that the claim of Catholicity, or universal- 
ity, as an attribute or "mark," exclusively belonging 
to the church of Rome, is utterly groundless and un- 
supported by fact. 



126 



VII.— THE MARKS OF THE TRQE CHURCH. 



APOSTOLICITY. 



We now proceed to the fburth "mark," alleged by 
the Romish writers to belong to the true church, — 
namely, " Apostolicity." But we find that the mo- 
ment the question is opened, a dispute commences 
touching the meaning of the term! Dr. Wiseman 
shall speak for himself in this matter. He says, — 
*'Once more, who are Apostolical? Is it meant by 
this term, that the doctrines taught in the church are 
those of the apostles? Most assuredly not. That 
the apostolic doctrines will be taught in the church 
of Christ is certain; but that the teaching of true doc- 
trines is the definition of apostolicity, is manifestly 
erroneous. For apostolicity of doctrine is identical 
with truth in doctrine; and the discovery of one is 
the discovery of the other. One cannot be a means 
for finding out the other. It, consequently, must con- 
sist in some outward mark, which may lead to the 
discovery of where the apostolic doctrines are. It is 
in the Apostolic Succession that this principle resides, 
— in having the line of descent distinctly traced from 
the present holder of the apostolical see, through 
those who preceded him, to the blessed Peter, who 
first sat therein. This is what was meant of old by 
the Apostolic church; and this is the sense in which 
the fathers applied it. I satisfied you, in my last dis- 
course, how Eusebius, Optatus, Irenaeus, and others, 
proved their faith to be the true one, by showing 
that they were in communion with the church of 
Rome, and could trace their pedigree, through it, from 



APOSTOLICITY. 127 

the apostles. Thus, therefore, did they understand 
Apostolicity to be given as an outward mark, in the 
continued and unaltered succession from the time of 
the apostles. Here, again, although the matter is 
manifest, I do not wish to take the question as one of 
fact, but to establish it on principle. We are the only 
church which claims this succession; others do not; 
at least the only way they can, is by proving their 
episcopal line back to the time they separated from 
us, and then claim as theirs that succession which 
forms the chain of our uninterrupted hierarchy. Such 
a course is at once oblique, and necessarily goes not to 
the root. They wish to be engrafted on us, rather 
than pretend to any root in the earth itself. Yet the 
Catholic church considers them as separatists from it, 
and consequently, they have no right to the succes- 
sion which rests on her Une."* 

Now our first remark here must be, that this pas- 
sage contains some of the boldest perversions and 
misrepresentations of historic fact that ever were 
crowded into a single argument. 

"Apostolicity" is said to consist "in the continued 
and unaltered succession, from the time of the apos- 
tles." And then it is immediately added, "^eare 
the only church which claims this succession; others 
do not; at least, the only way they can, is by proving 
their episcopal line back to the time they separated 
from us," &c. 

Naw this is really too indecent, especially in a man 
like Dr. Wiseman, who cannot plead entire ignorance 
of all ecclesiastical history. 

He speaks of Rome as though she were the mother 
and root of ail the churches, and as though it fol- 
lowed necessarily that every other church must trace 
their succession from her. But what is the fact ? 

The church of Jerusalem was constituted on the 
day of Pentecost, a. d. 29, and we find from Scripture 
(Acts XV. 22.) that it acted and ruled, as head and 
mother of all the churches, with James as its pre- 

* Dr .Wiseman's Ninth Lecture, p. 320. 



128 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

sident, long before the gospel was even so much as 
known at Rome, 

The church of Antioch was formed about the year 
A. D. 40, by Paul and Barnabas, and enjoyed full 
Christian privileges and a regular government, long 
before any church of Rome was heard of 

The churches of Asia, especially that of Ephesus, 
were visited and set in order by Paul, many years 
before he was carried to Rome as a prisoner. The 
same may be said of Corinth, Philippi, and other 
churches in Greece, Macedonia, &c. 

The church of Alexandria is stated by Eusebius to 
have been founded by Mark. 

Here, then, are some eight or ten important 
churches, most of which, if not all, were founded 
ten, twenty, or even thirty years before the least trace 
of any body of Christians could be discovered at 
Rome. 

With these facts before us, what are we to say to 
such an assertion as Dr. Wiseman's, — that " we, 
(Rome) are the only church that claims the succes- 
sion; others do not; at least, the only way they can, 
is by proving their episcopal line back to the time 
they separated from us," &c. Was there ever a more 
flagrant outrage on the truth of history? 

But the fact that most of the great eastern churches 
were in existence long before the church of Rome, is 
only a part of the case. Most of these churches sent 
out missions, from whose labours there arose various 
churches in the oriental regions, some of which re- 
main until this day, having enjoyed an iminterrupted 
succession of bishops for sixteen or seventeen centu- 
ries, without the least contact with Rome. 

At the present moment we find the Greek church, 
with its sixty or seventy millions of disciples, and 
ruled by bishops, none of whom would condescend to 
trace their succession to the see of Rome: — the Ar- 
menian church, reckoning some millions, and also 
holding itself entirely aloof from Rome: the Nes- 
torians, also very numerous, and who take their 
orders from Constantinople and Antioch, and not 



APOSTOLICITY. 1 29 

from Rome: the Syrian churches of Malabar, who, 
until the arrival of the Portuguese on their coasts, 
had never even heard of the pope, but derived their 
orders from Antioch: besides which ought to be 
added, the Copts, the Jacobites, and other eastern 
bodies, none of whom know or care any thing as to 
the Italian hierarchy. Again, therefore, we ask. How 
could Dr. Wiseman venture such an assertion as that 
Rome is *' the only church which claims Apostolic 
succession;'^ or, at least, that such others as may do 
so, claim it only through her line, and by virtue of 
her ordination ? 

The truth is, that the whole hypothesis of Dr. 
Wiseman is utterly untenable. The Jiposiolicity, 
which is indeed a mark of a true church, relates not 
to the mere succession, but to the doctrines set forth. 
Such was the view of the Apostles themselves. They 
ordained and sent forth divers, who afterwards fell 
into error. Among their own number there was a 
Judas; and among their followers a Demas, a Dio- 
trephes, an Hymeneus, and a Philetus. Never, there- 
fore, do the Apostles instruct us to receive every one 
upon whom Apostolic hands have been laid, irrespec- 
tive of all regard to his life and doctrine. On the 
contrary, their injunctions always are, to '^ try the 
spirits, whether they are of God J ^ John adds, "7/* 
there come any unto you, and bring not this doc- 
trine, receive him not into your house, neither bid 
him God speed.^^ But Paul goes still further, and sub- 
jects even the Apostles themselves to the same test. 
'''But though WE, or an angel from, heaven, preach 
any other gospel unto you than that we have 
preached, let him be accursed.^'' (Galatians i. 8.) 
Words cannot go beyond the strength or explicitness 
of this injunction. Apostles themselves might err; 
Peter had already erred; (Gal. ii. 14.) but the unerr- 
ing test to which even they themseves desired to be 
brought, was the "Apostolic doctrine," which they 
knew to be already recorded in the sacred books by 
God's own inspiration, and in which no particle or 
taint of error could possibly be found. 



130 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



Dr. Wiseman, and all the writers of his church, 
dislike this view of the question, and cling to the 
notion, that Apostolicity concerns succession and 
nothing else. But were we even to give way to 
them on this point, they would find it impossible to 
proceed upon their own hypothesis. Let us try it in 
a single instance. 

Regular succession from the days of the Apostles, 
according to Dr. Wiseman, makes a church an Apos- 
tolic church. Take, then, the case of Antioch. Here 
were the disciples first called Christians. This city 
possessed a regular .church and bishop, at least twenty 
years before either was found in Rome. , It is called 
by Chrysostom, "The Mother of the Faith.'' And 
in the fifth century. Innocent, bishop of Rome, ad- 
dresses the patriarch of Antioch, as "our school- 
fellow of the ./^joos/o/ec 5ee." 

How, then, is Dr. Wiseman io dieny succession^ — if 
that be the only test, to the church of Antioch? And 
if granted to Antioch, it must flow from her to many 
other churches in the east, her legitimate daughters. 
Thus the notion of succession, and that alone, being 
the only test, evidently fails; unless Dr. Wiseman is 
prepared to admit that there are other Apostolic 
churches in the world besides the church of Rome; 
which, however, he will hardly do. 

We must come back, then, to the only practicable 
and reasonable plan; and must seek to discover an 
apostolical church hy its apostolical doctrine. So 
reasons Gregory Nazianzen, who, in his eulogy on 
Athanasius, says, "He was elevated to the chair of 
Mark, not less the successor of his piety than of his 
seat. In point of time very distant from him, but in 
piety, which indeed is properly called succession, 
directly after him. For he that holds the same 
doctrine is of the same chair; but he v/ho is an ene- 
my to the doctrine is an enemy to the chair."* 

Nothing, however, will ever induce the Romanists 

* 21st Orat. In Laudibas Athanas. 



APOSTOLICITY. 131 

willingly to abide this test. And for their reluctance 
they have two very natural and sufficient reasons. 

1. The first is, that in submitting the doctrines of 
their church to the test of the apostolic records, they 
would, in fact, be virtually surrendering the whole 
question of the rule of faith. For, if the inquirer be 
permitted to use his own reasoning faculties in dis- 
covering from Scripture, whether or not the doctrines 
of the Romish church are, as they profess to be, apos- 
tolic, — by what means shall he afterwards be brought 
to surrender the use of these faculties in the still 
greater matter of his own salvation? If you admit 
that he is able to understand Scripture, — to judge of 
its meaning, — and to try the church by its rules, you 
have, in fact, let in a principle, which, if once admitted, 
can never again be excluded. Hence it is, as we may 
easily perceive, that the church of Rome will never 
willingly concede this point, — that the apostolicity of 
her doctrine is to be judged of by the inquirer, by a 
reference to the writings of the apostles themselves. 

2. The remaining reason is still more cogent. The 
church of Rome will never come to this test, because 
she well knows that she could not abide it for a sin- 
gle instant. Even at the very first step, — of a wil- 
lingness to be judged by the divine records, she is 
utterly opposed to the views and principles of the 
apostles. Their injunctions were *'Pro2;e allthingSy 
hold fast that which is good.'''' Rome, on the other 
hand, to use Dr. Wiseman's own words, demands 
"aS^o/w/g, unconditional submission to the teaching 
of the church," and declares that any man who goes 
to the Bible to search for doctrines, is a Protestant 
already, and has given up Romanism by the very act 
of beginning to read the Bible for himself!^ And 
she herein acts at least consistently. She knows that 
all the errors which she maintains, and against which 
we protest, have no support whatever in God's word, 
and that, consequently, he who opens that word, in 
order to ascertain their truth or falsehood, is already 

* Wiseman's First Lecture, p. 17, 19. 



132 ESSAYS ON R0MANIS3I; 

lost to her, and gained to Protestantism. Wisely, 
therefore, after this world's wisdom, does she direct 
her main effort to induce him to "shut up the book 
that is leading him astray;''* knowing that if this 
cannot be done, there is little hope of her retaining 
her hold upon his mind. A full and faithful investi- 
gation of her doctrines, in the light of God's word, 
is what she will never consent to. She denies, 
therefore, that apostolicity has any reference to doc- 
trine; because she knows well enough that her doc- 
trines are not apostolic. 

Let us look, however, a little further into Dr. 
Wiseman's argument, and see if there be any remain- 
ing validity in it. He says, — 

" Once more, who are apostolical? Is it meant by 
this term, that the doctrines taught in the church are 
those of the apostles? Most assuredly not. That 
the apostoHc doctrines will be taught in the church 
of Christ is certain; but that the teaching of true doc- 
trines is the definition of apostolicity, is manifestly 
erroneous. For apostolicity of doctrine is identical 
with truth in doctrine; and the discovery of one is 
the discovery of the other. One cannot be a means 
for finding out the other. It consequently must con- 
sist in some outward mark, which may lead to the 
discovery of where the apostolic doctrines are." 

Now any one who will steadily consider this pas- 
sage for a few moments, will see that it is a mere 
show of an argument, — an external imitation of a 
piece of reasoning, — without any reality or solidity 
about it. "Apostolicity of doctrine is identical with 
truth in doctrine;" and "one cannot be a means for 
finding out the other." This looks like an argument, 
when in reality it is none, but merely an adroit play 
upon words. 

We believe that there is, and always will be, an 
apostolical church upon earth. How, then, shall it 
be known? We say, by its holding the true or 
apostolic doctrine. Dr. Wiseman says that this can- 

* Wiseman's First Lecture, p. 19. 



APOSTOLICITY. 133 

not be its distinguishing mark, because the true doc- 
trine and the apostolic doctrine are one and the same, 
and therefore the one cannot be a means of finding 
out the other. This is a sort of shadow, which it is 
ahnost impossible to lay hold of; — it has no body or 
reality about it. It is '"' words, and nothing else." 

It is asked. How shall the apostolic church be dis- 
cerned? The answer is. By the possession of the 
true doctrine, or the apostolic doctrine, — whichever 
term is preferred. To say that " the true doctrine" 
and ^^ the apostolic doctrine" are the same, is nothing 
but what is admitted. Use whichever term is pre- 
ferred, the argument remains the same. 

And this kind of mark or test is quite preferable to 
that of an alleged descent or succession; inasmuch 
as a mark of the true church ought to be something 
generally discernible. Now it is easy for any one to 
possess himself of a copy of God's word, and to com- 
pare the doctrines of his church with the doctrines of 
the apostles: but it is not at all easy, nor even possible 
for one man out of a thousand to satisfy himself that 
Gregory XVI., now said to be living at Rome, is 
verily and truly the lineal successor, by a regular 
series of ordinations, of Linus, the first bishop of that 
see. True, he may receive this fact, if he chooses, 
on the assurances of others; but what shall be said, 
then, of *' a mark" of the true church which is not 
discernible, but is obliged to be taken upon trust? 

This " external mark" hypothesis, then, will not 
bear the least examination. There is no external 
mark. Gregory the XVI. possesses no insignia or 
credentials bearing the visible impress of heaven: 
he has no other proof to offer, of his succession from 
Linus, than the mere assertions of himself and a 
number of other interested persons. For many years 
together, in a former age (a. d. 1378 — 1417) there 
were two or three popes at the same time; each 
claiming to be the successor of the apostles; and 
while all this was going on, there were divers patri- 
archs in the east, at Constantinople, Antioch, &c., all 
of whom had far clearer proofs of their descent from 



134 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



the apostles, than any of the rival popes. How, then, 
could it have been possible, in the midst of all this 
confusion, to discern the Apostolic Church by the 
mere fact of continued succession? Nothing can be 
clearer than the absurdity of such an attempt. 

Thus, then, have we been forced to deny the claims 
of Rome, to be admitted to be " the One, Holy, Ca- 
tholic and Apostolic Church." To no one of these 
four characteristics can she establish any valid title. 
Yet there is such a church, though Rome be unable 
to substantiate her claim. There is such a church, 
but it is not local; nor governed by any human con- 
clave; nor united by any visible or political system. 
It is "-the church of the first-born, which are written 
in heavenf it is the church that is '^redeemed unto 
God, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, 
and nation.''^ It is the church which Christ will, at 
the consummation of all things, present unto His 
Father, in the glory of his own righteousness, " not 
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thingP To 
this church it behooves every man to see that he 
belongs; but nothing can be more absurd or unrea- 
sonable, than to attempt to identify this chosen, re- 
deemed, and sanctified community, with those dis- 
turbing, demoralizing and defiling conspiracies of 
priests and Jesuits, which at present carry on a 
remorseless warfare against the peace and happiness 
of mankind^ under the banner of the Roman see. 



135 



VIII.— THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 



We are now to enter upon a question, upon which, 
as upon a hinge, the present controversy will be found 
greatly to turn. We have seen that up to this point 
the church of Rome has failed to make good its 
ground. Its Rule of Faith, "the Church,'^ resolves 
itself either into a vague nonentity, entirely unavaila- 
ble; or else is identical with the infallibility of every 
individual priest. Its claim to "Catholicity,'' or the 
possession of the whole or universal church, seems 
very much to resemble the assumption of the Chi- 
nese, that theirs is the "Celestial Empire;" the only 
proof of which is, that they choose to call it so. 
While, in arrogating to itself the qualities of Unity, 
Apostolicity, and Holiness, we discern nothing more 
than a great display of pride, self-conceit, and con- 
tempt of others; since, assuredly, other churches can 
exhibit greater harmony; a more implicit submission 
to the apostolic decisions; and fruits of holiness, quite 
as pure and as abundant, as are to be found in the 
church of Rome. But we are now to inquire what 
can be said in proof of the allegation, that Christ 
gave to Peter, and to all his successors in the see of 
Rome, a seat of authority, a delegation of power, for 
the regulation and government of the Christian 
church, in all succeeding ages. For it is sufficiently 
clear, that if this point can be satisfactorily made out, 
it will be difficult for any body of Christians throwing 
off this yoke, and refusing submission to the supre- 
macy of Peter's successors, to clear itself from the 
guilt of schism. If the right of the bishop of Rome 
to a paramount authority over the whole body of 
Christians throughout the world can be established, 
then their state, who cast off a yoke imposed by 



136 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



Christ himself, must assuredly be a doubtful, if not a 
perilous one. But if, on the other hand, no such 
power was delegated to Peter, still less to his succes- 
sors, by the Redeemer himself, — then is the Papal 
authority, as now attempted to be exercised, a gross 
and unscriptural usurpation, and one marking him 
who assumes it, with a leading characteristic of Anti- 
christ. 

We shall probably gain the most satisfactory and 
complete view of the whole question, if we follow 
out the train of reasoning indicated in Dr. Wiseman's 
eighth lecture. It is not easy to find a more conden- 
sed or a more plausible statement, of the argument in 
favour of the Papal authority, than is furnished in 
that lecture. But it may tend to simplify the present 
discussion, if we take up the points in the following 
order: inquiring, 1. Was Peter elevated by his Lord 
to a supreme authority over his brethren the apos- 
tles, and by consequence, over the whole church? 
2. Was there any intimation given that such supre- 
macy was to be continued after his death, in any line 
of succession? and, 3. What are the claims of the 
bishops of Rome to be considered Peter's rightful suc- 
cessors? 

We will commence, then, with the first point : — Was 
Peter elevated by Christ to a supreme authority over 
his brethren and the church in general? Now the 
argument in the affirmative from Scripture is thus set 
forth by Dr. Wiseman: — 

"It is singular, that the moment Simon was intro- 
duced to our blessed Redeemer, he received a promise 
that a similar distinction of name should be given to 
him, 'Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas, thou shalt 
be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.' 

*'It was on occasion of his confessing the divine mis- 
sion of the Son of God, that the promise was fulfilled. 
At the commencement of our Saviour's reply, he still 
calls him by his former appellation. 'Blessed art 
thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have 
not revealed it to thee, but my Father, who is in hea- 
ven.' He then proceeds to the inauguration of his 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 137 

new name. 'And I say to thee that thou art Peter.' 
According to the analogy of the instances above given, 
we must expect some allusion in the name, to the re- 
ward and distinction with which it was accompanied. 
And such is really the case. The name Peter signi- 
fies a rock; for in the language spoken upon this occa- 
sion by our Saviour, not the slightest difference exists, 
even at this day, between the name whereby this 
apostle, or any one bearing his name, is known, and 
the most ordinary word which indicates a rock or 
stone. Thus the phrase of our Redeemer would sound 
as follows, to the ears of his audience : ' And I say to 
thee that thou art a rock.'' Now see how the re- 
maining part of the sentence would run in connexion 
with the preamble: 'and upon this rock I v/ill build 
my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it,' Such is the first prerogative bestowed 
upon Peter; he is declared to be the rock whereon the 
impregnable church is to be founded. 

"2. Our Saviour goes on to say, 'xind I will give 
thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatso- 
ever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also 
in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon 
earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.' The second 
prerogative is the holding of the keys, and the power 
of making decrees, which shall be necessarily ratified 
in heaven. 

"3. To the two ample powers given here, we must 
add a third distinguished commission, conferred upon 
him after the resurrection, when Jesus three times 
asked him for a pledge of a love superior to that of 
the other apostles, and three times gave him a charge 
to feed his entire flock, — his lambs and his sheep. 

"On the strength of these passages, principally, the 
Catholic church has ever maintained, that Peter 
received a spiritual pre-eminence and supremacy. 
And, indeed, if in these various commissions a power 
and jurisdiction was given to Peter, which was pro- 
per to hirn alone, and superior to that conferred upon 
all the other apostles, it will be readily acknowledged, 



138 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

that such supremacy as we believe was really bestow- 
ed upon him by God."* 

Here, then, we have the last and most carefully 
revised view of the whole argument from Scripture 
m favour of the Papal supremacy. Now the first 
remark we shall make upon it, is, how impracticable 
and vain is that Romish standard of faith, called the 
Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth, to which every priest 
of the Romish church is sworn, but which no 
priest ever yet did, or ever will, faithfully believe and 
maintain. 

Dr. Wiseman has adduced several passages of 
Scripture, and has affixed certain definite meanings 
to them, as the sense in which they are taken by the 
church of Rome. He admits, indeed, that some ob- 
jectors and opponents have read these passages in a 
different way, but throughout his whole statement 
we are left to suppose that it is only the Protestants 
and the "opponents" that have thus perverted these 
passages, while to the Romish church they have ever 
conveyed the meaning he has himself ascribed to 
them. He tells us, — 

" I allude to the attempt made many years ago, 
and lately renewed, to prove that the rock upon 
which Christ promises that he will build the church, 
was not Peter, but Himself." " This interpretation, 
you will perceive, my brethren, can boast more of its 
ingenuity than of its plausibility; it seems rather cal- 
culated to betray the shifts to which our opponents 
feel themselves obliged to resort," &c. &c. 

Now Dr. Wiseman has promised, in the creed of 
Pius IV. "never to take and interpret Holy Scripture 
otherwise than according to the unanimous consent 
of the Fat her s.^^ 

Yet he here, in this insidious manner, and charging 
the interpretration he chooses to deny, wholly upon 
" the opponents," actually attacks the decision of a 
considerable proportion of the most eminent fathers: 
For instance, — 

* Wiseman, Lecture VIII. p. 265—267. 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 139 

Jero7ne says /^ The Catholic church is founded with 
a firm root upon the rock ChristJ^ — {Ad Princ, 
Virg, torn. III. p. 173.) 

Cyprian says, " Christ himself is the rock.^^ — 
(Epis. 63.) 

Chrysostom: — " He did not say, upon Peter, — for 
he did not found his church upon a man, but upon 
faith. What therefore means, Upon this rock? — 
Upon the confession contained in his words." — [Ser- 
mon on Pentecost, vol. vi. p. 233.) 

Origen: — "But if you think that the whole church 
is built by God upon Peter only, what will you say 
of John, and of each of the apostles? Shall we dare 
to say that the gates of hell were not to prevail 
against Peter in particular, and that they should pre- 
vail against the rest of the apostles." — (Comm. on 
Matt, xvi.) 

Cyril of Alexandria: — "When Clirist said this, 
he called, I think, the immovable and firm faith of 
the disciple, the rock, upon which the church of 
Christ was founded without the possibility of fall- 
ing." — [DiaL 4. on Holy Trin. vol. 5. p. 509.) 

Ambrose: — " Faith, therefore, is the foundation of 
the church, for it was not said of the flesh of Peter, 
but of his faith, that the gates of hell should not pre- 
vail against it." — {On the Incarnat. ch. v. p. 711.) 

Hilary: — "The building of the church, therefore, 
is upon this rock of his confession. This faith is the 
foundalion of the church."~(On the Trin. book 6.) 

Augustine: — "Jesus said not, Thou art the rock, 
but. Thou art Peter. The rock was Christ, whom 
Peter confessed," — (Aug. Ret. I. 21.) 

Where, then, is the unanimous consent of the 
fathers; and where is Dr. Wiseman's candour and 
fair dealing, in representing as " the shifts of the op- 
ponents," the deliberate judgment of all these eminent 
fathers? 

But it may be replied that these fathers do not 
themselves agree, nor do they generally adopt the 
interpretation which Dr. Wiseman was combating, 
viz. that the rock spoken of was Christ. 



140 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

We readily admit this, but they all reject that 
view which the doctor himself puts forward as the 
interpretation of "the church.'^ They all oppose and 
deny the assumption upon which Dr. W. rests his 
main argument for the papal supremacy, viz. that 
Peter was the roc^ upon which the church was to 
be built. And here we may observe the difference 
between the practical use of the respective rules of 
faith adopted by the church of Rome and by Pro- 
testants. We are told by the Romanists that the plain 
written word of God, with the use of common sense, 
and with prayer for divine assistance, is no guide 
whatever; and that in this way it is impossible that 
men should ever arrive at a right understanding of 
God's word and will. And we are assured that our 
only course is to submit to the judgment of "the 
church," that is, the Romish church, in order to learn 
from her what is really contained in Holy Scripture. 
Now the church, to us, practically, means the priests 
of that church, for we can never read the hundreds of 
folio volumes of the fathers and the councils; and a 
commentary on Holy Scripture the church of Rome 
has not provided. Suppose, then, that we propose to 
consult " the church" on the meaning of Holy Scrip- 
ture, — we go to Dr. Wiseman, perhaps one of the 
most learned and acute priests of that church now 
living, — and what does he do? Notwithstanding his 
vow, "never to take and interpret Holy Scripture 
otherwise than according to the unanimous consent 
of the Fathers, he quietly gives us a sense directly 
opposed to the interpretations of Hilary, Chrysostom, 
Origen, Cyril, Ambrose, Cyprian, Augustine, and Je- 
rome; and never tells us a word of their contrary 
opinion, but describes it as a "device" and subterfuge 
of "the opponents," i. e. the Protestants! Now we 
would ask any reasonable man, is it not far better to 
maintain the right of reading the Bible for ourselves, 
with prayer to God for guidance, than to put our- 
selves, blindfold, in the hands of men v/ho thus as- 
sume to declare to us "the judgment of the church," 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 141 

and who give us that judgment after such a fashion 
as this! 

But to resume: — We cannot now go through all 
the mass of papal authorities on this point; but the 
truth is, that there is no one topic on which the Fa- 
thers, the councils, and even the popes themselves^ 
are more divided than on the interpretation of this 
text. A very general view has been, that the rock 
on which Christ promised to build his church, was 
the faith or confession made by Peter. Launoy and 
Du Pin reckon forty-four fathers and popish authors 
who maintain this opinion, among whom are Augus- 
tine, Chrysostom, Cyril, Gregory, Ambrose, and Hi- 
lary; and the same interpretation was decreed in the 
general councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Constance, 
and Basil. Another sense given to the words, is 
that which Dr. Wiseman describes as one of the 
'^shifts to which our opponents are obliged to resort.'' 
How can Dr. W^iseman, without shame, use this lan- 
guage, knowing, as he does, that this very interpre- 
tation is defended by Cyprian, Jerome, Origen, Euse- 
bius, Theodoret, Anselm, Theophylact, and many 
others; and that in divers general councils the same 
view was asserted without any disclaimer? 

But enough of the Fathers. We shall not tax the 
patience of our readers by going through the other 
points, or we might show, in like manner, that the 
majority of the ancient fathers and commentators 
understand the donation of the keys to have been 
made to the college of apostles, and to the church in 
general, not to the individual Peter; and that the 
third passage. Feed my sheep ^ is also a general com- 
mission, and not any special authority given to one 
person. Let us, however, go to the record itself, and, 
leaving fathers and councils, look "to the word and 
to the testimony,^' for light on this as on all other 
subjects. 

Let us compare the language applied to Peter with 
that applied to the other apostles, and we shall thus 
be enabled to judge whether any thing like supre- 

IQ 



142 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

macy was conveyed or implied in the former class of 
passages. The two series may be thus arranged: — 

" I say unto thee that thou art " Built upon the foundation of 
Peter, and upon this rock I will the apostles and prophets, Jesus 
build my church." — Matt. xvi. 18. Christ himself being the chief 

corner stone." — Eph. ii. 20. 

"And the wall of the city had 
twelve foundations; and in them 
the names of the twelve apos- 
tles of the Lamb." — Rev. xxi. 14. 
"And I will give to thee the "Verily I say unto you, what- 
keys of the kingdom of heaven ; soever ye shall bind on earth 
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on shall be bound in heaven ; and 
earth shall be bound in heaven, whatsoever ye shall loose on earth 
and whatsoever thou shalt loose shall be loosed in heaven." — Matt, 
on earth shall be loosed in hea- xviii. 18. 
ven."— Matt. xvi. 19. 

"He saith unto him, — Simon, "Take heed unto yourselves, 
son of Jonas, lovest thou me ? He and to all the flock, over which 
saith unto him, Yea, Lord, thou the Holy Ghost hath made you 
knowest that I love thee. He saith overseers, to feed the church of 
unto him, Feed my sheep." God, which he hath purchased 

with his own blood." — Acts xx. 
28. 

Now here it is as evident as possible, that just the 
very same powers, privileges, and functions, which 
are ascribed to, or conferred on, Peter, in some pas- 
sages, are equally applied to his brethren in others. 
The evidence, therefore, of any supremacy, or even 
of any primacy or superiority, utterly fails. 

But we do not wish to overlook the reasoning of 
Dr. Wiseman on this part of the argument. He says, 
"From the instances I have given, it is evident I may 
draw this canon or rule of interpretation in Scripture : 
that when a call, a prerogative, a commission is be- 
stowed upon one person singly, though the very same 
may have been bestowed upon others collectively, 
and himself together with them, he must thereby be 
supposed to have received a distinct and superior de- 
gree of it from the rest. ThuSj therefore, it must be 
with Peter.'^ And he adduces two or three passages 
in support of this view. 

He says, "Our blessed Saviour constantly incul- 
cated to all his disciples, and indeed to all his 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 



143 



hearers, the necessity o{ following him. Only ^he 
who followeth, wall^eth not in darkness;' all must 
Uake up their cross -duA follow him;' all his sheep 
must know his voice diudi follow the shepherd. When, 
therefore, he addressed individually to Peter and An- 
drew, to Matthew and the sons of Zebedee, the very 
same invitation, 'Follow me,' did it ever occur to 
you to reason, that, because the very same invitation 
was repeated, on other occasions, to all the Jews in 
common with themselves, therefore, they were not 
meant to follow Jesus in a distinct and more peculiar 
manner? Again, our blessed Redeemer is repeat- 
edly said to have tenderly loved all his apostles; he 
called them not servants but friends — yea, no one 
could have greater love for another than he mani- 
fested to them by laying down his life for them. When, 
therefore, John is by himself simply called the beloved 
disciple, as all the other disciples are also said to have 
been beloved, did you ever think of arguing, that as 
no more is predicated of him singly in one instance 
than is of all the twelve in others, therefore, the 
love of Jesus for John, was nothing distinctive and 
preeminent? Once more. To all the apostles was 
given a commission to teach all nations, to preach the 
gospel to every creature, beginning with Jerusalem 
and Samaria, unto the uttermost bounds of the earth. 
When, therefore, the Spirit of God told them to sepa- 
rate Saul and Barnabas for the ministry of the Gen- 
tiles; or when Paul individually calls himself their 
apostle, did you ever think of concluding that, as this 
individual commission was included and compre- 
hended in the general one given to all; therefore Paul 
was never invested with any personal mission, re- 
ceived no more here than the other apostles, and only 
groundlessly arrogated to himself the apostleship of 
the Gentiles as his peculiar office ? If in these instances 
you would not allow such conclusions, how can they 
be admitted in the case of Peter? Why are his spe- 
cial powers alone to be invalidated, by those which, 
he received in common with the rest?"* 

* Wiseman, Lect. VIII. p. 276. 



144 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

These instances, however, do not suffice to estab- 
Ush the doctor's rule. In the first case, our Lord 
calls upon all his disciples, as a general rule, io follow 
his steps. He then, at a particular time, calls two or 
three individuals {o follow him^ as personal attendants 
and apostles. Here the different sense in which the 
words were used, is obvious. But when our Lord 
tells one of his disciples, on one occasion " Whatsoever 
ye shall bind on earth shall he hound in heavenf^ 
and then, on another occasion, repeats the same pro- 
mise to the other disciples, the whole twelve being, it 
is admitted, at that time on an equal footing; it is by 
no means obvious that the words are used in a differ- 
ent sense in the first case, to what they were in the 
second. On the contrary, to take them in a higher 
sense, as applied to Peter, than when applied to the 
rest, is a mere assumption, resting upon nothing. 
.2. John is called the beloved disciple. Here is a 
.plain and unequivocal proof, that in a particular per- 
sonal affection, this apostle was very dear to our Lord, 
and the proof of it is seen in his dying bequest. Now 
if any such explicit avowal of supremacy, bestowed 
.on Peter, can be adduced, we shall be silent at once. 
But no such has ever been shown. 3. A general 
charge was given to all the apostles, to preach the 
gospel; but separate and particular charges were also 
laid upon certain of the apostles, at various times, to 
preach in particular places appointed to them. All 
this is very intelligible, but how does it prove that the 
same words, addressed to the whole of the apostles, 
and to one apostle, and clearly of general, not local 
or temporary application, must necessarily have more 
force and value m one case, than in the other? 

But "there is another passage," Dr. Wiseman pro- 
ceeds, ''which I have not included in those before 
rehearsed; because there is no express collation of 
authority conveyed in it; although it clearly draws a 
distinction between the prerogatives of Peter and 
those of the other apostles, and shows how he was to 
be the object of a special care and protection. 'And 
the Lord said Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desir- 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 145 

ed to have you^ that he may sift you as wheat. But 
I have prayed for thee^ that thy faith may not fail; 
and thouy hehig once converted, confirm thy breth- 
ren.' In this passage, Christ seems to draw a marked 
distinction between the designs of Satan against all 
the apostles, and his interest in regard of Peter. The 
prayer of our Saviour is ofiered for him specifically, 
that his faith may not fail, and that, when he shall 
have risen from his fall, he may be the strengthener 
of that virtue among his fellow-apostles. In him, 
then, there was to be a larger measure of this virtue; 
and wherefore, if he was not to be in any respect 
superior to the other members of that body? Nay, 
does not the very commission to strengthen their faith 
imply his being placed in a more elevated and com- 
manding situation?"* 

Now, instead of confirming, as Dr. W. imagines, 
his former arguments, this passage appears to us to 
clear away whatever doubt might remain on the sub- 
ject. It reveals to us the exact position of Peter, 
and the reason why he, his actions, and his sayings, 
occupy so prominent a place in the New Testament 
history. This reason consists in his peculiar charac- 
ter. Instead of being, himself, that rock, that stable, 
solid character upon whom, as his worshippers would 
tell us, the whole fabric of the church might with 
safety be reposed, — he was at once the most forward, 
the most rash, and the most unstable of the apostles. 
His peculiarity was a hasty and forward zeal. He 
is ever foremost, ever the first to speak. He is ready 
to cast himself into the sea, ready to die for Christ's 
sake. But he is also the most unstable. When he 
has cast himself into the sea, in a fervour of confi- 
dence, immediately his faith fails, and he begins to 
sink. When he has vowed to "go to prison and 
death for Christ's sake," in a few hours he is afraid 
of a servant girl. Even when he has drawn his 
sword in defence of his Master, in another moment 
he flies from the field. Still, however, this forward- 

» Wiseman, Lect. VIII. p. 277. 



146 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

ness naturally brings him always into the fore-ground 
and makes him a leading character in the whole his- 
tory. 

In looking, then, both at the passage we have just 
quoted '^TVhen thou art converted, strengthen thy 
hrethren^^ and at our Lord's thrice-repeated question, 
^^Lovest thou meV we must remember the apostle's 
peculiar situation — we must bear in mind that Peter 
had just before, in the most distinct and emphatic 
manner, cut off and excommunicated himself. He 
had publicly and repeatedly denied that he belonged 
to Christ, or had any part or lot in him. Without 
some such public restoration as this, then, how natu- 
ral would it have been for the other apostles, or at 
least for the disciples at large, to have refused the 
fallen apostle his place and rank among them. Might 
not we ourselves, and the whole Christian church, 
have stood in doubt of Peter at this moment, and 
hesitated in what light to view him, or whether any 
other than the lowest and meanest place in the 
church could ever be his? Granting his recovery, — 
still, how naturally might it have been said, that if 
the door of mercy were still open, and as a restored 
backslider, room might still be found for him, — yet, 
as to his former rank and standing, the sentence must 
be ^'his bishopric let another take.^^ All this, how- 
ever, the Lord clears away. His weak and frail ser- 
vant had thrice denied all knowledge of him; he 
therefore thrice calls upon him for a declaration of his 
renewed attachment; and thoroughly to reinstate him 
in his office, he thrice gives him the pastoral charge, 
''Feed my sheep.^"* And yet now, so apt are men, 
and so adroit is Satan, in twisting Scripture out of its 
most obvious meaning, — this mercy shown to Peter, 
in restoring the poor backslider, is exaggerated into 
some special reward or privilege bestowed upon him; 
and because he had trebly fallen, and received a thrice- 
repeated pardon, it is gravely argued that this, the 
most unstable of the apostles, is deliberately placed 
over the rest, as their head and their lord, and decla- 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 147 

red to be the rock, the foundation, on which the whole 
church should be erected! 

And very similar is the misconstruction of the other 
passage. No one doubts that Peter's fall, his repent- 
ance, his bitter grief and his gracious recovery, would 
give him an insight into the depths of the sinfulness 
of his own heart, into the snares and devices of Satan, 
and into the ocean of the love of Christ, which would 
enable him to '^strengthen his brethren^'' under temp- 
tation, and to comfort and upraise those that had fallen, 
in a peculiar manner. But there is nothing in all this to 
lead us to suppose that Christ meant by this exhorta- 
tion to give him any rule or authority over his 
brethren. The recovered prodigal in the parable is 
specially rejoiced over; but he is not rewarded for his 
recreancy, by being put in authority over his brother. 
On the contrary, while the father justifies his joy at 
his return, he says to the son who had not fallen, "Ze>, 
thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.^^ 
And so Peter might be an object of great interest to 
Christ, and might be enabled, by his sinning and suf- 
fering experience, to administer to the cases of others, 
without being at all entitled, by his falls and his re- 
coveries, to assume any supremacy over those who 
had never fallen after his example, or been renewed 
by his recovery. 

But having now examined all the direct evidence 
from Scripture, such as it is, we must proceed, in the 
next place, to the indirect or collateral evidence which 
may be found in the Acts of the Apostles, and in their 
epistolary writings. 

And here the Romanist immediately suggests, that 
we find, immediately after the ascension of our Lord, 
the apostle Peter assuming the place of the leader 
and director of the whole college of Apostles: (Acts 
i. 15.) That the same apostle, immediately after- 
wards, is especially blest by the conversion of three 
thousand souls by a single sermon, on the day of Pen- 
tecost! (Acts ii. 44.) And when the Samaritans 
receive the gospel, Peter is the individual commis- 
sioned to form and constitute the church in that city: 



148 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

(Acts viii. 14 — 17.) So is the word first preached to 
the Gentiles by this same apostle: (Acts x. 34 — 43.) 
From these circumstances he draws a considerable 
further support to his claim on behalf of the succes- 
sors of Peter. Now it may be admitted, that much 
may be gained, as to the real meaning of a doubtful 
or disputed passage, by observhig how the apostles 
themselves, and their immediate disciples, received 
and understood the words in question. With this 
view, therefore, it is most important to watch and 
observe, in the closest manner, all the words and 
actions of the apostles and other rulers of the church 
in the first ages, in order to gather from those words 
and actions an answer to this one question,— Whether 
they knew any thing of this alleged supreme authority, 
lodged by Christ in the person of one of their body, 
the apostle Peter? Now on this point let us observe— 
1. That it is generally agreed that Mark, the friend 
and follower of Peter, wrote his gospel at Rome, 
about thirty years after our Lord's ascension. The 
church then had already existed one whole genera- 
tion without a visible head, except, indeed, Peter had 
been that head. Now, no one can doubt that the 
question of his supremacy, if any one at that time 
ever thought of asserting such a claim on his behalf, 
must have been asserted, and either established or 
negatived, long before the lapse of an entire genera- 
tion. Yet Mark, Peter's own friend, writes his gospel 
at the end of these thirty years, and never once al- 
ludes to any such appointment or ordinance of Christ ! 
Even those passages of our Lord's conversations, 
upon which the Romanists now rest their claim, are 
wholly omitted in Mark's gospel, as matters of minor 
consequence; as points not demanding any particular 
mention. What can be more inevitable than the con- 
clusion, that Mark, the personal follower of Peter, 
never thought of asserting any such claim on his be- 
half? Had he regarded his friend and spiritual father* 
in this light; had he looked upon him as the apostle 

* 1 Peter v. 13. 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 149 

specially appointed by Christ to rule his church after 
his departure, is it conceivable that he could ever 
have omitted, in writing his gospel, all kind of allu- 
sion to so important a fact? But he is wholly silent! 
What more decisive evidence of a negative charac- 
ter, could we possibly have, to show that even at a 
distance of thirty years from our Lord's ascension, 
this supposed supremacy, vested in Peter, was en- 
tirely unknown? 

2. The same silence is observable, too, in Peter's 
own epistles. Not one syllable is there of supremacy 
throughout the whole. His assertion of authorit)?- is 
far less explicit than that of either Paul, John, or 
James. It is, in fact, a beautiful specimen of hu- 
mility, altogether free from the least assumption. — 
" The elders which are among you,^^ he says, ^' I ex- 
hort, who am also an elder, and n witness of the 
sufferings of Christ, and a partaker of the glory 
that shall he revealed: feed the flock of God,''^ <^'c. 
^^And when the chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall 
receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.^' 
(1 Peter v. 1, 2, 4.) Here the apostle exhorts, not 
commands ; and he exhorts not as a superior,\)\\i as 
one of themselves, " / who arn also an elder.^^ He 
also goes on to adduce other characters, which he fills 
in common with the other apostles and disciples, — 
'' and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a par- 
taker of the glory:" in all which there is the very 
opposite to any claim of a peculiar rank, or privilege, 
or authority. And he concludes by adverting to "Me 
chief shepherd,''^ the one only chief shepherd, not 
himself, but Christ Jesus. Now these epistles were 
written about thirty-six years after our Lord's ascen- 
sion. All this time, — the third part of a century, — 
then, must Peter, according to the supposition of the 
Romanists, have been filling the office of pope, and 
ruling the whole Christian church, and yet, when he 
writes two epistles to the churches, there is not the 
least trace to be discerned in either, of his supposed 
papal supremacy! Here is a second strong negative 
proof, in the absence of direct evidence where we 



150 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



might have most rationally expected it. Which of 
the popes of Rome, for the last thousand years, have 
addressed a document of this kind to the Christian 
churches, without so much as once alluding to their 
own authority? 

3. Another instance of the same entire silence, is 
visible in the writings of Paul. We cannot imagine — 
indeed it is never even supposed by any of Peter's 
advocates, that Paul exhibited any signs of contu- 
macy or rebellion towards him. We might be quite 
sure that the entire submission to which his mind 
and spirit was brought by the vision which appeared 
to him near Damascus, would have shown itself in 
the most unqualified veneration of any representative 
or successor of Christ, — of any delegated head of his 
church. 

Yet we may search throughout his various epistles, 
and never meet with the least allusion to either the 
pope or papal authority ! He writes to the Romans 
themselves, — the date of this epistle, according to the 
best authorities, being about a. d. 58. At this time, 
according to all the historians and advocates of the 
Romish church, Peter had been several years bishop 
of that city. Yet his ^'beloved brother Paul,"* 
writing to that church, opens his epistle without the 
least allusion to the apostle who is said to have been 
at its head, and closes it in the same silence. Nay, 
more, — he devotes a considerable space at its close, 
to the most affectionate remembrance of a great num- 
ber of persons (nearly thirty), but entirely overlooks 
his brother apostle ! Surely this circumstance must 
be admitted to be altogether opposed to the suppo- 
sition that Peter was at that time at Rome; nor can 
we believe that one apostle would have addressed a 
pastoral letter to a church which had, at that very 
time, another apostle presiding over it. But be that 
as it may, is not the supposition a most inconceivable 
one, that Paul, writing to the Romans, and sending 
his affectionate greetings to a great number of per- 

* 2 Peter iii. 15. 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 151 

sons, could have altogether omitted Peter, had the 
latter really been, at that time, the bishop of that 
church? 

But farther: — Paul, a few years after, was himself 
a resident in the Roman capital: and, while there, a 
prisoner, but still remembering the "care of all the 
churches," he writes, successively, to the Ephesians, 
Philippians, and Colossians, to Timothy and to Phile- 
mon. In these epistles, too, the names of many bre- 
thren are introduced, and many greetings conveyed, 
but still not a word of the supposed bishop of Rome, 
and first pope, Peter; who, at that time, according to 
the maintainers of his supremacy, must have been in 
the full exercise of the plenitude of his power at 
Rome. And in these epistles of Paul, Luke sends his 
greetings to the churches, and so does Mark, and also 
Timothy,* but Peter is wholly silent. Nay more, not 
only does his brother apostle wholly omit all reference 
to him, but on one memorable occasion he speaks still 
more plainly: '''At my first answer no rnan stood 
with me, but all men forsook me."t Now Protestants 
find in this fact no impeachment of the character of 
Peter, inasmuch as they do not even believe that he 
was in Rome at the time. But the Romanist is in a 
different position. All his authorities insist upon it, 
that Peter was not only a resident in Rome at that 
period, but that he was actually the bishop of the 
church of Rome at that very time! They also insist 
upon it, that Christ had constituted him the Rock, 
firm and immovable, on which his whole church 
should be built: and yet we here find him, according 
to their own view of the matter, the head and leader 
of the infant church in Rome, basely deserting a bro- 
ther apostle, and flying from the post of duty in the 
hour of peril ! ''No m,an stood with me," says Paul, 
" hut all forsook me; I pray God it w.ay not be laid 
to their charge.^^ 

This strange fact is inseparable from the Romish 
statement. All their leading authorities, Jerome, 

* Col. iv. 10, 14. Phil. i. 1. t 2 Tim. iv. 16. 



152 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

Binius, Labbeus, Pelavius, Spondanus, Bede, Bruys, 
and Baronius, agree in asserting Peter to have arrived 
at Rome in the reign of Claudius, and to have con- 
tinued there, as the first pope, till his death under 
Nero. And they all equally agree, that his death and 
that of Paul took place at nearly the same period; 
but while we hear of Paul's imprisonment, on two 
occasions, and on the first for more than two years, 
nothing is said of any imprisonment of Peter. Had 
Peter been a fellow-prisoner of his brother apostle, it 
is quite inconceivable that Paul should never once 
have mentioned him. Had he been free, and the 
bishop of the church at Rome, and fulfilling his office 
in supporting and comforting Paul, it is equally im- 
possible that no allusion to the subject should have 
been made. And that he should have been there, 
and at liberty, and yet should have been one of those 
whom Paul describes as "forsaking" him, — is cer- 
tainly the greatest disgrace that we can attach to his 
name, and the most incompatible with the character 
of THE Rock, which the Romanists claim for him. 

Our conclusion, then, is simply this, — That the 
mere tradition, for it is nothing more, — upon which 
the church of Rome builds the assumption that Peter 
was her first bishop, is utterly at variance with the 
whole tenor of the apostolic writings; and that the 
probability is, — supposing Peter ever to have been at 
Rome at all, — that he came there, perhaps to meet 
Paul, about the time of the latter's return, (all ac- 
counts agreeing that Paul took a journey between 
his first and second imprisonment) and that both 
meeting at Rome, constituted the church at that place, 
appointing Linus the first bishop, and were soon 
afterwards seized by the tyrant Nero, and involved in 
the general massacre of the Christians to which he 
resorted, immediately after his own flagitious attempt 
to burn the city. This is the most tenable hypothesis 
we are able to discover, admitting as it does, the tes- 
timony of tradition so far as not absolutely to deny 
Peter's visit to Rome, and his martyrdom there; but 
refusing to admit it when wholly inconsistent, as we 



SUPKEMACY OF THE POPE. 



153 



have shown it to be, with every record we have, of 
the movements, and thoughts, and impressions of 
both these apostles. 

But it may be asked, whether we can adduce 
nothing of a more positive nature, in proof of the 
non-admission of this authority on the part of the 
early Christians? 

We shall, therefore, proceed to remark on one or 
two circumstances of this kind; as for instance, — 

4. There are several passages in the Acts of the 
Apostles, in which Peter is seen, — as he is, in fact, 
throughout our Lord's own ministry, — as one of the 
most forward of the apostles. The passage in. Acts i. 
15, is just one of these, (" Peter stood up in the midst 
of the disciples^^ &c.) and there are several others. 
All these passages clearly show the apostle to have 
been a zealous and energetic man; but there is no 
trace whatever of the least claim to supremacy 
throughout any of them. And the third passage 
relied on by the Romanists seems not only to be 
wholly unsusceptible of such a meaning, but it nega- 
tives the very claim they would set up: for it runs 
thus, — ■ 

^'TVhen the apostles which were at Jerusalem 
heard that Samaria had received the ivord of God, 
THEY SENT U7ito them Peter and John.'''' Acts ix. 
14. 

This is surely quite irreconcilable with the idea 
of Peter's being at this time the first Pope. Only 
imagine, for an instant, the college of cardinals now 
meeting, to consider the state of their churches in 
Canada, and determining " to send unto them Gre- 
gory and Paoli." Would not a Romanist be shocked 
at the presumption of the college, in thinking them- 
selves empowered to send the Holy Father at their 
discretion? And would they not wonder how any 
second name could be associated with his, as if on an 
apparent equality? Surely this verse is one of the 
least favourable to their cause that could possibly 
have been brought forward. But, 

5. Observe, that as in the days of our Saviour, 



154 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM; 



Peter, this supposed rock, showed himself in fact, the 
most unstable of all the apostles; and he whom, we 
are told, the Lord intended to place over his church, 
received at his hand more frequent and severe re- 
proofs than any other, — so, when Christ had ascend- 
ed, and upon the Romish hypothesis, the supremacy 
with all its attendant infallibility must have been 
actually held by Peter, we still find him vacillating 
and unstable, "dissimulating" and denying the truth: 
and receiving a reprimand at the hands of Paul, who 
was not even called to the faith until years after Peter 
had been an apostle. " When Peter was come unto 
Jintioch^^ says Paul, '^ I ivithstood him to the face, 
because he ivas to be blamed. For before that cer- 
tain came from, James, he did eat with the Gentiles: 
but ivhen they were come, he withdrew and sepa- 
rated himself, fearing them which were of the cir- 
cumcision, t/lnd the other Jews dissembled likewise 
with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried 
away with their dissimulation: But when I saw 
that they walked not uprightly according to the 
truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them 
all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of 
Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest 
thou the Gentiles to live as do the e/ez^j^.?"— Gal. ii. 
11—14. 

Now all this takes place, it is important to remem- 
ber, some twenty years after our Lord's ascension, and 
at a period when, if Peter's supremacy was ever to be 
known and acknowledged, it must have been fully 
admitted and established. Yet we here see the last- 
called of all the apostles, not submitting to his deci- 
sions, but boldly and rightfully protesting against his 
unfaithfulness! Nothing can show more distinctly 
than this, that the popedom of Peter was, at this 
time, utterly unknown. 

6. But not only is there no trace whatever, during 
all these years, of the existence of this authority in 
the person of Peter; but we have abundant evidence, 
that, as far as any degree of primacy or precedence 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. ] 55 

was conceded to any one, that precedence was en- 
joyed by another. 

We are not about to set up a rival pope, or to claim 
for any other of the apostles that authority which we 
deny to Peter; but we shall have no difficulty in 
showing, that a sort of precedence, whether arising 
from age, solidity of judgment, or whatever other 
cause, was constantly conceded to one of the apostles, 
which apostle was not Peter. Take the following 
instances: — 

''Peter said, Go. show these things unlo James, 
and to the brethren.^'' (Acts xii. 17.) 

''And after they had held their peace, James an- 
swered saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 
My sentence is, that lue trouble not them, which 
from among the Gentiles are turned to God.^^ (Acts 
XV. 13, 19. 

"And when vje were come to Jerusalem, the day 
folloiving, Paulwent in with us u?ito James, and all 
the elders were present.''' (Acts xxi. 17, 18.) 

"And when James, Cephas, and John, loho seemed 
to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto 
me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of 
fellowship : that we should go unto the heathen, and 
they unto the circumcision.^' (Gal. ii. 9.) 

"For before that certain came from James, he did 
eat with the Gentiles.'' (Gal. ii. 12.) 

Here we have, again and again, a sort of honoura- 
ble precedency given to James, which exceeds any of 
the like sort ascribed to Peter. We repeat that we 
claim no popedom for James; but that it seems per- 
fectly clear, that James could never have held this 
sort of place or rank among the apostles, had Peter 
been the divinely appointed ruler and governor of the 
whole church. 

The result of the whole inquiry, then, is as fol- 
lows : — First, we ascertain that the claim advanced 
by the church of Rome on behalf of Peter, rests mere- 
ly, as far as direct Scripture evidence is concerned, 
upon three short passages from the gospels; which 



156 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

passages are very brief and general, and, as they run 
quite parallel with other passages of the New Testa- 
ment which speak of similar rights and privileges 
being granted to all the disciples, cannot be admitted 
to be conclusive on the point. Other and collateral 
evidence, therefore, must be called in. If Peter ever 
assumed this office, said by the church of Rome to 
have been conferred on him by Christ, we must surely 
find some traces of it, in the subsequent writings of 
the apostles, and in the book which records their lead- 
ing words and actions. Now we have a book ex- 
pressly devoted to their Acts, and we have the writings 
of Paul, John, Jude, and James, as well as of Peter 
himself. And these writings were produced by their 
respective authors at different periods, from about 
twenty years after our Lord's ascension to about the 
sixtieth year. Now, would all these leaders and 
governors in the church so contrive their writings, as 
of set purpose to exclude all mention of the apostle 
Peter's supremacy? Or would Peter himself, if he 
knew such a trust to be reposed in him, write two let- 
ters to the churches immediately before his martyr- 
dom, and never make the least, allusion to his pontifi- 
cal dignity or authority, or provide or suggest any 
course to be taken immediately after his removal.^ 
Can anyone say that this is a probable story? Or 
rather, would not any one, struck with this strange 
circumstance, be ready to exclaim, "It is impossible! 
surely I can find some proof, from the apostles' 
writings, that they knew and consented to the domi- 
nion of Peter?" To any such, we would say. Search 
and look, and if you can find one single passage indi- 
cative of an established papacy, throughout all the 
apostolic writings, we will at once admit that you 
have made out one very important point in favour of 
the church of Rome. But you will search in vain. 
No such passage do the apostolic writings contain; 
and the absence of it, — as it is altogether incredible, 
if the papacy were then actually established, that 
not a word should be found of the fact, in all these 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 157 

writings, — the absence of it, we repeat, does seem to 
us to be altogether decisive against the claim. 

Having now reviewed, both the direct and the 
collateral evidence from holy writ, in support of the 
'alleged primacy of Peter, we might fairly claim an 
immediate verdict ; for it is impossible that any merely 
human testimony or opinion (and such is all that re- 
mains), can suffice to establish so momentous a doc- 
trine as that of the supreme authority of one bishop 
over the whole Catholic church. But we shall not 
object to go on with the consideration of the case^ 
descending, now, from the conclusive authority of 
inspired apostles and evangelists, to the more doubt- 
ful testimony of fallible human historians. Let us 
ask, then, what historical evidence the Romanists 
rely on, for the establishment of the two facts, — that 
Peter was the first bishop of Rome, — and that he be- 
queathed his full supremacy, whatever it might be, to 
his successors in that chair? 

Romish controversialists are very fond of treating 
these as points universally conceded. But so far 
from such being the case, long and learned argu- 
ments have been constructed to show that the greater 
probability is, that Peter never was at Rome at all! 
But we do not wish to urge a point which cannot 
now be positively decided, and which matters little 
to the main question. We are willing to admit, from 
the general tenor of those fragments of the history of 
the early Christian church which remain to us, — that 
it was most generally believed, in the second and 
third centuries, that Peter as well as Paul had visited 
Rome towards the end of his life, and had been mar- 
tyred there. But having conceded that point, we 
have next to ask. What proof exists, from any au- 
thentic ecclesiastical record, that the apostle was ever 
bishop of Rome, or that he delegated any of his sup- 
posed plenary authority to those who might be bishops 
of that see after his decease? 

It is replied, that Jerome distinctly states, that 
" Peter, having preached to the Jews in Pontus^ 
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, proceeded 

11 



158 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

to Rome in the second year of Claudius, and held the 
episcopal chair twenty-five years." 

Now Jerome wrote about the year a. d. 400, or 
more than three hundred years after Peter's death. 
Of course his evidence is worth very Uttle, except so 
far as we are able to discern that his statements rest 
upon earlier and authentic records. Should an histo- 
rian of the year a. d. 3500, for instance, find it assert- 
ed, in some writer of the year 1837, that Luther came 
to London and resided there ten years, and should he 
be quite unable to find the least mention of this fact 
in any of the records made in Luther's own life-time, 
or for three hundred years after, he would certainly 
set the whole story down as a fiction. And Jerome's 
story runs clearly counter, in this case, to various 
facts indubitably laid down both in the Acts and in 
the Epistles. 

" Peter," says Jerome, '- came to Rome and assum- 
ed the episcopal office, in the second year of Claudius." 
Now in disproof of this, observe 

That Herod's death (Acts xii.) immediately before 
which Peter's imprisonment at Jerusalem had taken 
place, was in the fourth year of Claudius: 

That in the ninth of Claudius, all Jews were com- 
manded to depart from Rome: 

That Paul went up to Jerusalem and found Peter 
there (Acts xv. 7), in the twelfth year of Claudius: 

That in the next reign, that of Nero, Paul arrived 
in Rome, and found the Jews of that city quite unin- 
formed as to the faith of Christ (Acts xxviii. 22), 
which, had Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, 
been resident there for several years, certainly could 
not have been the case. Jerome's story, therefore, 
dating above three hundred years after, can possess 
no value whatever, in the face of these authentic con- 
tradictions. 

But we have next offered us, the evidence of Pa- 
pias, or rather what is called the evidence of Papias; 
for there is no work of his extant. We [luve nothing 
from him except a few scraps, scattered up and down 
in Eusebius, &c. at second hand. But why not take 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 159 

Up Eusel^ius himself, and Irenseus, the best writers of 
that period, and honestly consult thenn, whatever 
their evidence may be? 

This the Romanists are not very ready to do3 — and 
for the obvious reason, that there is not a tittle in 
either that will serve their purpose. But if we are to 
inquire what these fathers inform us as to Peter's 
episcopacy at Rome, we must first consider a pre- 
vious objection; — that no apostle ever assumed the 
limited and lower office of a diocesan bishop. 

The mision of the apostles was, " Go ye into all the 
world, and preach the gospel to every creature/*' 
And, in obedience to this injunction, the apostles, 
and especially Peter and Paul, travelled extensively, 
and planted the gospel wherever they went, appoint- 
ing bishops, hut not settling themselves down perma- 
nently, in this or that place, as the overseers of a 
single city or district. " A bishop's authority," says 
Chrysostom, and Giannon, " is limited to a city or na- 
tion ; but an apostle's commission extends to the whole 
world."* And so confesses Du Pin — "The apostles 
perambulated the principal parts of the earth, and 
were confined to no place or city."t And Ruffinus, 
who lived in the fourth century, is quoted in the 
Clementine Recognitions, edited by Cotelerius, as say- 
ing distinctly, that " Linus and Cletus were bishops 
in Rome before Clement, during Peter's life; they 
performing the duties of bishops, and he fulfilling the 
office apostolical.":}: This view of the matter, as it 
appears to us, seems entirely to negative the idea of 
Peter's having been the first bishop of Rome. He 
had much to do in the foundation of the church of 
Antioch, doubtless; possibly some connection with 
that of Rome, and also with that of Alexandria; but 
he never was bishop of either place, any more than 
Paul was bishop of Corinth, or of Ephesus, or of 
Crete. And any one who takes the trouble to turn 
over the pages of Eusebius, the earliest ecclesiastical 

* Chrysostom, 11. 8. Giannon. i. 2. 

tDuPin. 15. JCotel. i. 492. 



160 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

historian now extant, will see how fully this view is 
borne out by his account of the primitive church. 
The Romish hypothesis is, that Peter was the first 
bishop of Rome, establishing there the supreme head- 
ship of the church, and the seat of infallibility, and 
bequeathing all his power and influence to his succes- 
sors. Had this been the case, — and had the see of 
Rome been so regarded by the early Christians, could 
so important a circumstance have escaped the notice 
of the first Christian historian, or could Eusebius, 
writing in the time of Constantine, two hundred and 
fifty years after, have so treated of the state of the 
church during the first three centuries, as to keep the 
supremacy of the Roman see wholly out of view, if it 
were, in fact, really known and acknowledged in 
those days? Surely not. 

But what is the view that Eusebius gives, of the 
state and standing of the Romish church in the ear- 
nest times? 

We will endeavour to state it. He gives us, first, 
in his 2d book, ch. iv. v. an old tradition or story of 
Papias, of Simon Magus having visited Rome, and of 
Peter's following him there, to oppose him; but he 
gives no date as to this fact. And we must bear 
always in mind, that Peter's message was, by agree- 
ment with Paul, (Gal. ii. 9,) especially to the circum- 
cision, and yet that when Paul was brought to Rome, 
A. D. 62, or .the eighth of Nero, he found the Jews of 
that city wholly ignorant of the gospel of Christ; a 
proof indubitable, one would think, that Peter had 
not then been there. A few years before that, Paul had 
addressed his epistle to the Geiitiles at Rome, but 
only to them as to isolated "saints,'' and not, as in 
Corinth, a "church." We must maintain, therefore, 
that up to the time of Paul's imprisonment at Rome, 
Peter was not there, nor was a church established. 
In fact, Jerome's account is at once negatived by the 
statement of Eusebius, book 3, chap. i. " Peter is 
reported to have preached to the Jews dispersed 
through Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 161 

Asia, and about the end of his days, tarrying at 
Rome, was crucified." 

However, Eusebius in another place tells ns, (book 
2, ch. XXV.) that at last both Paul and Peter were 
martyred by Nero, and about the same time. But he 
adds not one word of either of them having been 
bishop of that city, or of his having bequeathed his 
pre-eminence to his successor. But in his 3d book, 
c. ii. he tells us that " Linus was the first bishop of 
Rome, which he repeats c. iv. And at c. xix. of the 
same book he says, "At that time Clement ruled the 
church of Rome, being the third bishop after Paul 
and Peter. The first was Linus; the second Anacle- 
tus.'' In all this, therefore, the general idea present- 
ed is, that Paul and Peter formed and constituted the 
church at Rome, shortly before their martyrdom, and 
that Linus was the first bishop, — Linus, named by 
Paul, in his second epistle to Timothy, but not named 
by Peter in either of his epistles. 

And precisely hereunto agrees the account given 
by Irenseus, who wrote about a century before Euse- 
bius, and who gives exactly the same view. He 
speaks of the "universally known church, founded 
and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious 
apostles, Peter and Paul," who, he adds, "delivered 
to Linus the bishopric to govern the church." 

Now here, surely, we have the best evidence that 
we can hope to obtain; for Irenaeus was the disciple 
of Polycarp, who was himself taught by the apostles, 
and appointed by them bishop of Smyrna. When, 
therefore, we are informed by him, not that Peter 
was the first bishop of Rome, and that he endowed 
that chair with supremacy and infallibility to the end 
of time, but that Peter and Paul founded the church 
at Rome, and appointed Linus its first bishop, we 
seem to have arrived at a full knowledge of the real 
fact. 

If it is made out then, as this passage from Irengeus 
seems to us to make it out, that Linus was in no sense 
successor to Peter; that Peter only founded the see, 
and that not singly, but in conjunction with Paul, 



162 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

just as he founded that of Antioch, and probably 
many others; then, let Peter possess in his own per- 
son, what powers and prerogatives he might, still the 
Papists have established no succession — no trans- 
mission of those rights and powers to the bishop of 
Rome. Just as well might they be claimed for the 
bishop of Antioch, or for Mark, Peter's disciple, and 
his successors at Alexandria. 

But we are reminded of the strong language of 
Irenseus touching the see of Rome, and also the par- 
ticular care taken by Eusebius to record its succes- 
sion. 

Now Eusebius does not particularize the bishops of 
one church solely, but of all the leading churches. In 
book 3, c. xix. for instance, he gives us the succession 
in three churches — Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria; 
in other chapters of many more. But both he and 
Irenaeus naturally speak of Rome with the greatest 
interest and emphasis, that city being the capital and 
centre of the civilized world, and its church and bishop 
necessarily enjoying great celebrity and influence 
from that single circumstance. 

The question, however is, what is his general lan- 
guage, with reference to the bishop of Rome, his pre- 
cedence, or his authority? 

This will best be ascertained by turning over his 
pages with a view to ascertain when and on what 
points controversies first arose in the church; and in 
what light the authority of the bishop of Rome was 
then considered; — whether as the legal arbiter or not. 
Now the first circumstance of this kind which is 
recorded in Eusebius, occurs in book 5, c. xxi. xxii. 
xxiii. It there appears that about the end of the 
second century, a difference had sprung up, as to the 
right period for the celebration of Easter; the Asiatic 
churches calculating it in one way, the western an- 
other. Here, then, if a central authority, a supreme 
head, had been then understood to exist in the person 
of the Roman bishop, we should have seen the whole 
matter submitted to his decision, and either a bull of 
the pope, or a decree of the pope and a council, 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 163 

would have decided the whole question. Instead of 
which, what does Eusebius tell us? He says, "a 
synod for this cause assembled in Palestine, of whom 
Theophilus, bishop of Csesarea, and Narcissus, bishop 
of Jerusalem, were chief. At Rome, there was a 
synod also gathered together for the same cause, 
whereof Victor their bishop was president. Again, 
there was another of the bishops of Pontus, where 
Paulinus as the senior presided; and another of the 
bishops of Gaul, which Irenseus superintended. Book 
5, c. xxi. 

Here nothing is more clear than that Rome and its 
bishop are only mentioned as on an equality with 
Jerusalem or with Gaul. There is not a word of any 
peculiar value attaching to the decision of Victor of 
Rome, or of the synod over which he presided. 

But we must go further. Victor himself, the dif- 
ference still subsisting, proceeded to censure the Asian 
churclies, and to break off communion with them, on 
this account. To a modern Romanist, this seems 
quite natural. The decision of a pope, and especially 
of a pope with the support of a synod, would be held 
final with a modern Romanist. Bat nothing of the 
kind seems to have occurred either to Irenseus or to 
Eusebius. On the contrary, Eusebius speaks with 
approval of several bishops who "sharply repre- 
hended" Victor for this step, of which reprovers 
Irenseus is one. Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, 
who was appointed to the see of Smyrna by the 
apostles themselves; — Irenaeus not only disapproves 
of the act and sentence of the bishop of Rome, but 
he writes a letter to him, to rebuke him for causing a 
schism in the church. Is it possible, in the view of 
these facts, to imagine that either Irenaeus or Euse- 
bius beheved in the supremacy of the Roman see? 
There is not the least trace of such an idea, in the 
whole account of this transaction. 

The next controversy that arises, is that of the re- 
baptizing of heretics. Here Cyprian, the most cele- 
brated bishop (afterwards a martyr) of Africa, differed 



164 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



from the opinion of the Roman bishop. Each excom- 
municated the other, and for many years, Carthage 
and Rome were at mutual enmity. But there was 
no symptom throughout the quarrel, of any claim to 
infallibility on the part of Rome, or of the least con- 
cession of such a claim, on the other. 

Again, in book 7, c. xxix. we find a synod held 
upon the case of Paul of Samosata. But we do not 
find the bishop of Rome, nor any representative of 
his, either presiding over that synod, or even present 
at it. The sentence having been passed, it was com- 
municated by letter, equally to the bishop of Rome 
and the bishop of Alexandria. There is nothing here 
to evince the least belief in the supremacy of Rome. 
In fact, any stranger to the controversy, carefully 
perusing Eusebius and Irenaeus, would close both 
of them without ever having had a single idea 
tending towards papal supremacy presented to his 
mind. 

The Romanists, however, are fond of quoting the 
description of the see of Rome, given by Irenasus. 

This is a natural and just description of what must 
have been the rank and estimation, and circumstan- 
tial importance of the see of Rome, quite apart from 
any claim of supremacy. 

It only remains, then, to ask, what says the general 
current of history, as to the precedence, or power of 
the see of Rome? 

This is best answered by the single fact, that when 
Constantine summoned the first general Christian 
council, — the council of Nice, — the bishop of Rome, 
so far from being considered the natural president, as 
he must have been, on the supposition that the claims 
of the papacy were then well known and admitted, — 
was actually not present; — and so far as we can see, 
the precedence was given to Hosius,bishop of Cordoba, 
out of respect to his great age. Nothing, surely, can 
be more decisive than this, of the question whether 
the supremacy of the see of Rome was then known 
and acknowledged. 



SUPREMACY OF THE POPE. 165 

When, however, we descend to later periods of 
ecclesiastical history, we perceive a change. 

As the papal supremacy had, of course, a begin- 
ning, and as each succeeding year of the history, 
both of the church and of the empire, grows darker 
and more forlorn, after the days of Constantine, we 
might naturally expect, in tracing the annals of the 
following reigns, to come to the traces of the rising 
Papacy. And so, in fact, we do. The prediction of 
Paul, (2 Thess. ii. 7, 8.) that " when he who now let- 
teth be taken out of the way, then shall that wicked 
one be revealed," was exactly fulfilled. Constantine 
removed the seat of empire from Rome to Constanti- 
nople, and though it was afterwards for a time re- 
stored, yet soon the imperiat power, which had kept 
the episcopal in subjection, was finally taken from 
Rome, and the bishop became the first authority in 
that city. He that had let or hindered the rise of the 
Papal power, was now taken out of the way, and 
that power rapidly grew and increased to its present 
dimensions. But there is no difficulty in tracing its 
rise, or in understanding its origin. 

The conclusion, then, of the whole matter, is this: 
Let the Romanist take the Acts of the Apostles, and 
all the epistles, and show us, if he can, the least trace 
of any primacy conceded either by the apostles them- 
selves, or by any of their immediate followers, to 
Peter. Then let us proceed onwards, and consult 
every fragment of church history that is extant, and 
we shall have to pass over several centuries before 
a shadow of Papal supremacy appears. On these 
grounds, then, we come to the conclusion, that no 
authority is to be found for this alleged supremacy, 
and that the whole assumption is like all the other 
pretensions of Popery, the offspring of later and more 
corrupt ages. Our conclusion, therefore, is, 1. That 
Scripture shows no supremacy, or authority, confer- 
red on Peter, more than on the other apostles: 2. 
That even if a doubt remained on this point, on that 
of a permanence of such authority, vested in some 



166 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM. 

alleged successors of the apostle, it cannot be denied 
that Scripture is wholly silent: 3. That the bishops 
of Rome have no more claim to be considered the 
successors of the apostle, than the bishops of Antioch 
or Alexandria: and, 4. That the voice of all antiquity 
witnesses, that the supremacy of the Romish see was 
wholly unknown for the first three or four centuries, 
and only sprang up on the decline of the imperial 
power. 



167 



IX.— THE RULE OF FAITH 



RECAPITUnATION OF THE ARGUMENT. 



It will be admitted to be evidently expedient, at this 
stage of our discussion, to pause for a short time, in 
order to review the course of reasoning through 
which we have passed, and to recapitulate the lead- 
ing arguments bearing upon the grand question of the 

RULE OF FAITH. 

The Protestant rule has been often referred to, 
though briefly, as consisting of holy scripture 
alone: but our chief attention has been given to the 
consideration of that opposed to it by the adherents 
of Rome, which rule, if simply and honestly stated, 
is nothing else than the church. We have been 
occupied in discussing the claims of the bishop and 
clergy of Rome, both to assume to themselves the title 
of "The Catholic Church,'^ and, under that title, to 
claim the attribute of InfallibiUty. And we will now 
endeavour to review, in a very few words, the line 
of argument through which we have travelled in the 
preceding essays. 

Our first glance at the subject brought before our 
view the two opposing principles as to the Rule of 
Faith; when it appeared that the favourite position 
taken up by the Romish controversialists, was, that 
their church was "The Holy Catholic Church," and 
therefore infallible; a position which we at once pro- 
ceeded to controvert; and to show that the assump- 
tion of Catholicity on the part of the church of Rome, 
— the assertion that the whole church of Christ is 
comprehended within its communion, — is not only 
most arrogant and intolerable, but is also altogether at 



168 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

variance with historical facts. We observed, that on 
more than one occasion, the general or CathoUc 
Church, consisting of all bodies of Christians adher- 
ing to the faith of Scripture, had been split and divi- 
ded by the misconduct of the see of Rome: — That in 
A. D. 862, half the Christian world was forced to 
withdraw from all connexion with that see, by the 
novel and inadmissible assumption of absolute power, 
by its then bishop; and that seven centuries after, six 
or eight kingdoms were simultaneously roused, by the 
corruptions and exactions which Rome had intro- 
duced, to cast off at once all subjection to her. Now 
all these churches, whether eastern or western, con- 
sisted of baptized persons, ministered to by bishops, 
priests, and deacons, as regularly ordained as any that 
Rome could offer. Standing, therefore, exactly on a 
footing with the Italian church, in all respects, as 
these churches did, it was clearly a groundless and 
intolerable assumption on the part of the bishops of 
Rome, to assert that all Christian communities not 
submitting themselves to their authority, were there- 
by excluded from the pale of the Catholic or Univer- 
sal Church. 

The Romanist, then, being driven to his second 
line of defence, we had next to consider in what way 
he asserted the title of his church to exalt herself to 
this position of supremacy, and to assume that all 
who were not of her communion were without the 
pale of the Christian church. This claim appeared 
to be rested upon two facts; 1. The character of the 
Romish church, as the One^ Holy, Catholic, and 
Apostolic Church; and, 2. The authority vested by 
Christ in Peter and his successors. We therefore pro- 
ceeded, in the next place, to investigate these preten- 
sions of the church of Rome. And we considered 
them in their natural order. 

The Unity of the church of Rome we found to be 
a mere assumption; for, taking its popes, we found 
one pope controverting and excommunicating another; 
looking at its councils, we found no two of them in 
perfect agreement; and examining its theologians, 



KECAPITU11A.TI0N OF THE ARGUMENT. 169 

we found as many varying sects and opinions, as are 
to be found in the freest forms of Protestantism itself. 

Its Holiness was refuted by the least inquiry into 
the facts of that church's history. Its representatives 
and rulers, the popes, bearing, as they did, the title of 
"Holiness," were frequently, as their own historians 
have testified, ^^ monsters of wickedness. ^^ Its peri- 
ods of the most undisturbed tranquillity and unresisted 
rule, have been periods of the most awful iniquity 
that the annals of Christendom can exhibit. And, 
at the present day, the comparative morality of any 
people may usually be gauged by this rule; — if Popery 
be predominant, there is assuredly great wickedness; 
but if Popery have but a slight hold upon the com- 
munity, and Protestantism more generally prevails, 
then there is a proportionate degree of virtue, morals, 
and happiness among the people. 

Its Catholicity, or universality, had been already 
denied, inasmuch as there were notoriously whole 
kingdoms, and not one or two, but ten or twelve, 
which possessed a regularly ordained Christian min- 
istry, and the sacraments of the gospel, and which 
numbered, altogether, above a hundred millions of 
professing Christians, and which yet acknowledged 
no sort of connection with the church of Rome. 

Its Jlpostolicity yielded as little advantage. If by 
this term was merely meant, the descent of its minis- 
ters, by continued succession of ordinations, then the 
hke descent could just as easily be proved by the 
bishops of the Greek, the English, and many other 
churches. Or, if the term described, as it ought, the 
doctrines derived by its clergy from apostolic authori- 
ty, then a greater respect for apostolic doctrines could 
be pleaded on the part of the Protestant churches, 
than on that of Rome. 

In all these four pretensions, therefore, the proof 
failed, and neither the Unity, the Holiness, the Ca- 
tholicity, or the Jlpostolicity of Romanism was found 
to be effectually established. 

We proceeded, therefore, next, to the investigation 



170 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM : 

of the important statement, that a pecuUar authority 
was vested in Peter and his successors, to rule and 
govern the church; an authority which, if estabUsh- 
ed, would have condemned as contumacious, all who 
ventured to assert their entire independence of Peter's 
chair. 

But here also the proof fell utterly short. The 
commission given to Peter was merely a parallel one 
with that given to the other apostles; repeated, in- 
deed, with emphasis, lest that apostle's fall should 
have been thought to have deposed him from his 
office. Of its descent to any of his followers, either 
in Rome or in any other see, not the least proof could 
be adduced. That Peter was ever bishop of Rome, 
is not only doubtful, but the strongest reason exists to 
believe that he never filled that chair; that no apostle, 
in fact, ever became a diocesan bishop; but that 
Peter and Paul, meeting at Rome shortly before their 
martyrdom, constituted the church in that place, and 
appointed Linus its first bishop. No trace of any 
universal bishopric, or of any supremacy over the 
whole church, either in Rome or elsewhere, appears 
for centuries after: on the contrary, the decrees and 
decisions of that see were freely canvassed and resist- 
ed by Irenseus, Cyprian, and many other of the early 
fathers. The supremacy of Peter, then, over the 
whole church, is neither found in Scripture nor in 
church history; and the supremacy of the bishop of 
Rome was never so much as mentioned for several 
centuries. Nor is there the least reason adduced, 
why the latter should follow from the former. Even 
could we discern any tokens of a primacy in Peter,-^ 
still it would remain to be proved that those who 
presided over the Romish church after his removal, 
and who possessed neither his divine inspiration nor 
his miraculous powers, were nevertheless to succeed 
to the possession of his place and prerogatives. This 
may be assumed; but not a tittle of proof has been 
offered, in establishment of so extravagant an assump- 
tion. But that both Peter, and the bishops of Rome, 



RECAPITULATION OF THE ARGUMENT. 171 

did often err, and were resisted and overruled, is 
abundantly proved, both from the writings of the 
apostles, and from the records of the early church. 

There remains, therefore, not the least ground for 
any pretension, on the part of the church of Rome, to 
demand the credence or the submission of any human 
being, either because she is the one, holy, catholic, 
and apostolic church, or because she wields the au- 
thority of Peter. She is nothing more than a church 
among other churches; her bishop merely one among 
others, and her right to claim the prostration of the 
mind to her decisions, is clearly seen to be an assump- 
tion altogether unfounded. 

There is, however, one feature of the case repeat- 
edly urged by Dr. Wiseman, which we have up to 
this period forborne to remark upon. It is, the ana- 
logy which is alleged to exist between God's dealings 
with his church under the Old Testament dispensa- 
tion, and under the New. It is observed, that under 
the Mosaical law he instituted a fixed and perpetual 
priesthood, confined to one family, presided over by 
a single head, and ruling over the whole ecclesiastical 
community, in such sort that any person refusing sub- 
mission and adherence to this body and its legally 
appointed head, was, ipso facto, "cut off from his 
people.'' And hence it is argued, that some such plan 
or system of organization might be expected under 
the new dispensation. Accordingly, says Dr. Wise- 
man, — "It is on this form of argumentation that I 
have endeavoured to proceed. First of all, I con- 
sidered the outward form and inward constitution of 
the church of Christ, to which he confided his religion, 
as a state foreshown, constituted, and actually exist- 
ing. As a state foreshown; inasmuch as I explained 
to you, how God had ever worked in a certain course 
or order of his providence for the preservation of truth 
among mankind; how a certain provision was made 
of old, whereby doctrines and hopes revealed to man- 
kind, but lost to most of the world, in the corruption 
which ensued, were preserved, in the constitution of 
a certain establishment dedicated to that purpose. I 



172 ESSAYS ON eomanism: 

showed you that this system was merely figurative 
of that which is to come: that all the figures, all the 
imagery and reasoning, and the very phrases which 
applied to it, were also applied to that which has 
succeeded it, as though this were to be nothing more 
than the perfecting and fulfilling thereof. I endea- 
voured, at the same time, to explain how it was the 
natural order of God's providence that the course 
once commenced should go on in a persevering ordi- 
nance, until the end; and how, although we might 
expect a more perfect developement, and brighter 
manifestations, it would be expecting a violation of 
his plan of action among men, if we anticipated any 
sudden change, or complete interruption, in that 
course which he had once commenced."* 

And in another place the doctor similarly argues; 

"From this it would appear, that the means taken 
by God's wisdom for preserving those doctrines of 
hope which he had communicated unto mankind, 
was to institute a visible and compact society, within 
which he, virtually, guaranteed their perseverance, 
and over which he watched with tender solicitude: 
and we see that his action upon this body was not 
detailed upon each individual, but through a more 
select order of men, constituting a graduated hier- 
archy, whose duty it was to edify by example, to 
purify by sacrifice, to instruct by explanations of the 
law, to stand, in fine, between God and his people, 
ministering unto both, as his chosen servants, and 
their appointed teachers. The object of this internal 
organization could only be the preservation of essen- 
tial unity of worship and of heart. Reuben was 
obliged yearly to come from beyond the Jordan, and 
Zebulon from over the mountains, and both to wor- 
ship with their brethren at one altar in Jerusalem, 
lest new opinions or rites should creep in among 
them, and that communion which is the essence of 
religion be even slightly broken. 

" Now, looking for the application of this beautiful 

* Wiseman. Lecture ix. p. 299, 300. 



RECAPITULATION OF THE ARGUMENT. 173 

constitution, to the dispensation whereof it was a 
shadow, the first thing that must strike us is, how 
completely the New Testament links the one unto the 
other, by applying to the new state all the imagery 
and phraseology employed in prophecy, as descriptive 
of the peculiar characteristics of the old. The church, 
or dispensation of faith, is now the kingdom which 
was to be restored with its worship by the Son of 
David; there is a priesthood and an altar, there is 
authority and subordination, there is union and unity 
all as before; and indeed in the later prophecies of 
the old law, the church is never otherwise described 
than as the revival, extension, and perfection of the 
former state. Now this is all explained only by two 
reflections. First, that the former constitution was 
not abolished but exchanged, and by that change 
perfected; and in this manner did Jesus say, that he 
came not to abolish, but to complete or accomplish: 
secondly, that the former was a type, and merged into 
its reality, not so much dying as passing into a second 
existence, where a true sacrifice covered a typical 
oblation, where redemption given passed before re- 
demption expected, where uncertainty had ripened 
into knowledge, and hope yielded its kingdom to 
faith. ^'* 

Such is Dr. Wiseman's argument, and it both de- 
serves and invites a reply. Two objections to the 
conclusion which Dr. Wiseman seeks to draw from 
the premises he lays down, naturally present them- 
selves: — These are as folio w^s: 

1. A certain well defined order of priesthood ex- 
isted in the Jewish church, and it had a single, di- 
vinely appointed head. But nothing can possibly 
be more distinct, or positive, or beyond the reach of 
mistake or doubt, than the divine appointment of the 
family of Levi to the priesthood, and of the family 
of Aaron to the pontificate. We have, therefore, a 
right to argue in our turn, that if God had really in- 
tended to constitute a second primacy over his whole 

* Wiseman, Lecture iv. p. 93, 94. 
12 



174 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

church, under the New Testament, he would have 
been as expHcit in his commands as he was in the 
Old. And it is because we find not the least trace of 
any such appointment, that we demur to the allega- 
tion, that the see of Rome was intended to occupy 
the same place, under the new dispensation, that the 
high priest occupied under the old. Show us even a 
tenth part of the evidence in favour of the supposed 
successors of Peter, that any descendant of Aaron, 
occupying the office of high priest, could have ad- 
duced, and we are loyal subjects of "the holy see" 
from that moment. 

But instead of any such evidence, all we find in 
the New Testament tends in an exactly opposite di- 
rection. The epistle to the Hebrews, for instance, is 
devoted to a comparison of the Mosaical dispensa- 
tion with that which was to follow it. Most unques- 
tionably, therefore, had it been the divine will that 
the Jewish church and its ecclesiastical system should 
be followed by a similar constitution, modelled, in all 
its visible features upon the first, we should here have 
found it delineated. Instead of which, we find just 
the contrary. We find the sacrificing priesthood for 
ever abolished: " *Bnd every priest (under the Leviti- 
cal priesthood) standeth daily ministering, and of- 
fering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can 
never take away sins: but this m.an, after he had 
offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on 
the right hand of God: From henceforth expecting 
till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one 
offering he hath perfected for ever them, that are 
sanctified.^^ Heb. x. 11 — 14. 

And the high priesthood and headship of the church 
is again and again declared to be permanently cen- 
tered, not in the bishops of Rome, but in Christ. " fVe 
have a great High Priest, that is passed into the 
heavens, Jesus the Son of God^ (iv. 14.) "They 
tridy were many priests, because they were not suf- 
fered to continue by reason of death; but this man, 
because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable 
priesthoods^ (vii. 23, 24.) Dr. Wiseman tells us that 



RECAPITULATION OF THE ARGUMENT. 175 

we have " a priesthood and an altar,'^ in the pope 
and the mass, of which Aaron and his sacrifices were 
only typical. But Paul not only does not say this, 
— which, if true, he certainly would have said, — but 
he plainly tells us that our high priest, the head of 
the gospel dispensation, " is passed into the heavens;" 
and that we are not now to look for a succession of 
priests, as in Aaron and his race, who "were not suf- 
fered to continue by reason of death,V but to one; 
'^We have such a High Priest, who is set on the 
right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the hea- 
vens.'^ (viii. 1.) Nothing, then, can be more complete 
than the opposition between the apostle Paul and Dr. 
Wiseman. But we pass on to observe, 

2, That we must not forget, when the demand 
made is of implicit submission — that the priests under 
the Mosaical dispensation, indisputable as was their 
divine appointment, were frequently found to be but 
'< blind leaders of the blind;" nay, were, especially in 
our Saviour's own times, the most decided and bitter 
opponents of the truth. 

Now the demand made upon us by Dr. Wiseman 
and Dr. Milner, on behalf of him who they tell us 
now occupies the place of the High Priest, is of 
nothing less than implicit submission. The church 
of Rome, says Dr. Wiseman, " is the depository of all 
truth, and is gifted with an exemption from all liabil- 
ity to err, and has authority to claim from all men, 
and from all nations, submission to her guidance and 
instruction."* And this is said, we must again re- 
peat, of a church whose alleged commission bears not 
the least comparison with that which was indisputa- 
bly given to Aaron and his successors. 

Now if even the successors of Aaron, invested in 
the clearest manner with the pontificate and all its 
plenary authority, — if even these fell into the most 
fearful errors, — what could be expected of those who 
act under the far less distinct and emphatic authority 
conveyed in the Saviour's parting words? If the 

* Wiseman. Lecture iv. p. 109. 



1 76 ESSAYS ON R03IANISM I 

High Priests were not "gifted with an exemption 
from all liability to err," how can we assume that 
the popes are so preserved? If that pontiff who re- 
ceived his mitre and his vestments in the immediate 
presence, and almost by the very hands, so to speak, 
of God himself, was so far from being thus exempted 
from error, that even within sight of Mount Sinai he 
was found assisting the people in an act of idolatry, 
— what grourid can there be for assuming that a 
greater "exemption" from error is promised to the 
priesthood or the pontiff of our own times? 

If it is objected that Christ left a special promise to 
his disciples, just before his ascension, that he would 
be with them always, even to the end of the world, 
we reply, that this circumstance constitutes no dis- 
tinction between the cases, nor does it secure "exemp- 
tion from error." We know that God himself was 
visibly present, in a pillar of a cloud and of fire, with 
the Israelites in the wilderness, and yet both the 
priests and the people were continually transgressing 
against him. 

Dr. Wiseman, however, notices this objection, of 
the errors and transgressions of the Jewish priest- 
hood and people thus: "But you will say, with all 
the precautions which his providence took to secure 
the safe transmission of his promises, see how fear- 
fully they of old did fall from him, and forget all that 
he had taught them; and shall he then be supposed 
to have retained the same imperfect institutions now, 
which failed him so sadly then? Now far from there 
being any objection in this to what I have hitherto 
said, it seems to me rather a confirmation thereof. 
Much falling off there often was — a total loss never." 

What the Dr. means by saying "a total loss never," 
we cannot divine. Our Lord's own words to the 
Jews were, "The kingdom of God shall he taken 
from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the 
fruits thereof." Matt. xxi. 43, And so it was in the 
end. But the point we wish to insist u;jon is this: — 
To establish the decisions of the Romish church as 
the rule of faith, it is necessary that its advocates 



RECAPITULATION OF THE ARGUMENT. 177 

should assume, as Dr. Wiseman, we have seen, does 
assume, — that that church "is the depository of all 
truth, and is gifted with an exemption from all lia- 
bility to err." Now, will any one say, that the two 
or three- sentences in the gospels, on which Dr. Wise- 
man affects to rely, confer on the successors of Peter 
and of the apostles, greater honours, immunities, and 
privileges than were bestowed upon Aaron and his 
successors in the priesthood? Surely not! The Jew, 
then, under his dispensation, eighteen hundred years 
ago, might as reasonably believe and contend, that his 
spiritual guides, who "sat in Moses' seat,'^ were 
"'exempted from all liability to err," as the Papists 
can now claim the same exemption for the pope or 
the clergy of Rome : This is clear. 

We ask, then, where was their "'exemption from 
error," when they became "the betrayers and mur- 
derers of the Just One," — when they "killed the 
prince of Life," — when they "rejected the stone 
which God appointed as the head of the corner," — 
when they "slew and hanged on a tree, him whom 
God had exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give 
repentance unto Israel, and forgiveness of sins?" 

This question must be answered or Dr. Wiseman's 
argument recoils upon himself, with tremendous force. 
The analogy is selected and insisted on by himself. 
He alleges the case of the Jews as exhibiting an out- 
line and leading scheme of God's plan with the Chris- 
tian church; and the authority and commission of the 
High Priest and his assistants are especially adduced 
as typifying the intended platform of the coming 
Christian church. We then naturally inquire, whe- 
ther, seeing that the commission, ordination, and in- 
vestiture of Aaron and the high priesthood, were cer- 
tainly more explicitly detailed, and apparently more 
emphatic, than that of the apostles, — it must not be 
naturally concluded, that the same degree of infallibil- 
ity or exemption from error, which is claimed for the 
Christian priesthood, belonged also to the preceding 
order? This must be admitted to be a reasonable 



178 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM; 

conclusion. We then observe, that the high priests 
showed their "Uability to err" in an hundred instan- 
ces, and especially in their condemnation of the Son 
of God. Dr. Wiseman's own case of analogy, there- 
fore, on which he lays so much stress, evidently be- 
comes a broken reed, and pierces his own hand. The 
pope succeeds the High Priest; stands in his place; 
succeeds to his primacy and rule; at least, so says Dr. 
Wiseman. Well, the High Priest crucified the Lord 
of glory; what security have we that the pope may 
not, in the person of his servants, again persecute and 
put to death the Son of God ? The question is nat- 
urally suggested by Dr. Wiseman's own argument; 
but it is impossible to find a satisfactory reply to it. 

But the reader will be almost tired of these nega- 
tive conclusions. Shall we never, he will be apt to 
inquire, arrive at any thing more satisfactory? If 
the Romish Rule of Faith proves to be nothing worth, 
can you, for the Protestant churches, establish any 
thing more satisfactory? Or are we left, in point of 
fact, without a guide, on this ocean of life, to direct 
our course by mere baseless speculation? 

We can reply with confidence, God be thanked! 
that we are not so left. There is a guide, the most 
unerring and infallible; a rule, perfect as eternal 
justice and truth could construct; and this guide, 
this rule, is so accessible, so simple, so intelligible, 
that among us, at least, every man will be left wholly 
without excuse, who either neglects or refuses to be 
regulated by its directions. This rule is nothing else 
than the Holy Scripture, the written word of God, 
revealed by the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 
the third person in the ever-blessed Trinity, to divers 
of his servants, in different ages of the church, and 
preserved under his providential care, to be, in all 
ages, the guide of his people, in their journey through 
this wilderness, towards their eternal rest. 

Many, however, will be inclined to doubt, whether 
there is sufficient ground for supposing that the Scrip- 
tures were really intended for this purpose; that they 



RECAPITULATION OF THE ARGUMENT. 179 

were meant for universal perusal; and made level to 
the general understanding of mankind, so as to answer 
the purpose of an universal rule? 

But if such persons are not unbelievers, — if they 
accept the Bible as the word of God, having no doubt 
whatever of its divine character, they will be neces- 
sarily compelled to believe its own testimony as to its 
purport and intent. Now this testimony is most full, 
clear, and explicit. It no where describes itself after 
Dr. Wiseman's fashion, as furnishing merely "cre- 
dentials to the church;" which church is then to be 
the great teacher. On the contrary, while it con- 
stantly represents the priesthood as an erring and 
fallible body, often negUgent, often heretical, often 
idolatrous, often misleading and seducing the people; 
it ever asserts its own purity, sufficiency, and unerring 
truth, as constituting the only safe and divinely ap- 
pointed guide for all mankind. 

" The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the 
soul : the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise 
the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoic- 
ing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, 
enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, 
enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true, 
and righteous altogether. More to be desired are 
they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also 
than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them 
is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there 
is great reward." — (Psalm xix. 7 — 11.) "Where- 
withal shall a young man cleanse his way? by tak- 
ing heed thereto according to thy word." "Thou 
through thy commandments hast made me wiser than 
mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have 
more understanding than all my teachers: for thy 
testimonies are my meditation." " Thy word is a 
lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." 
" The entrance of thy word giveth light; it giveth 
understanding unto the simple." — (Psalm cxix. 9, 98, 
^^, 105, 130.) "To the law and to the testimony: 
if they speak not according to this word, it is because 
there is no light in them." — (Isaiah viii. 20.) " And 



180 



ON ROMANISM : 



Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore 
err, because ye know not the Scriptures, neither the 
power of God?" — (Mark xii. 20.) "These were 
more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they 
received the word with all readiness of mind, and 
searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things 
were so/' — (Acts xvii. 11.) "Whatsoever things 
were written aforetime were written for our learning, 
that we through patience and comfort of the Scrip- 
tures might have hope." — (Rom. xv. 4.) All Scrip- 
ture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable 
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction 
in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, 
thoroughly furnished unto all good works." — 2 Tim. 
iii. 16, 17. 

Now, in all these passages we cannot but perceive 
that the attributes ascribed to the Scriptures partake 
of the divinity of their author. Perfection is con- 
stantly asserted to be their character. They are 
unerring, and they are of universal utility. Every 
recommendation of them is to all; every assertion of 
their object and aim clearly assigns their value and 
their use, not to the church only, but to all mankind. 
They are to, ''-give understanding to the siniple:^^ 
they are to enable "Me young man to cleanse his 
way,^^ They are to be the universal test, insomuch 
that whatever is not in agreement with them, is at 
once, and ipso facto, condemned. 

And let it be remembered, that all these excellences 
are ascribed to the Scriptures, without reserve. It is 
admitted, indeed, that "the unlearned and unstable" 
may "wrest" "the Scriptures to their own destruc- 
tion," just as a man may poison himself with that 
which was prescribed to him as a medicine; but it is 
never for a moment conceded that, in themselves, the 
Scriptures are any thing but what is perfectly wise, 
and excellent, and holy. But a very different lan- 
guage is held with regard to the priesthood, which 
Dr. Wiseman would have us to believe to have been 
God's special " provision" for the " preservation of 
his truth among mankind." 



RECAPITULATION OF THE ARGUMENT. 181 

In Jeremiah ii. 8. God says," The priests said not, 
Whei^e is the Lord? and they that handle the law 
knew me not.^' In Lament, iv. 13. the miseries of 
Jerusalem are declared to be "/or the sins of her pro- 
phets, and the iniquities of her priests^ that have 
shed the blood of the just in the midst of her.^^ 
Ezekiel xxii. 26. bears the same testimony — ''Her 
priests have violated my law, and have profaned my 
holy things.'^ Hosea vi. 9, says, " the company of 
priests murder iii the way.^^ Zephaniah iii. 4. " her 
priests have polluted the sanctuary and have done 
violence to the lawV And Malachi ii. 8. addresses 
the priests in these words, " Ye have departed out of 
the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law, 
ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the 
Lord of hosts. ^^^ 

But what is Dr. Wiseman's answer to all this. It 
is merely that "much falling off there often was, — a 
total Joss never." Now even if we were to admit 
this, — which, however, is not true, — still, what is the 
admission obviously implied, as regards a rule of 
faith? To say that there was " a frequent falling off" 
is to confess, in so many words, that the priesthood 
was not infallible, — that it often fell into error. Such, 
therefore, as guided themselves solely by the coun- 
sels and instructions of the priests, would be, of ne^ 
cessary consequence, liable to be led astray. They 
would be following a rule which was not infallible; 
whereas those who preferred that rule to which Pro- 
testants adhere, would be secure of infallible guid- 
ance. " The law of his God is in his heart; none op 
HIS STEPS SHALL SLIDE." (Psalm xxxvii. 31.) Here 
is the great practical distinction between the two 
7'ules of faith about which we are contending; and 
here is irrefragable proof of the superiority of the 
Protestant rule. But we must not open, in the pre- 
sent essay, a question so large as that which is now 
presenting itself before us, and the consideration of 
which will naturally come under our view, on the 
next occasion. 



182 



X.— THE RULE OF FAITH. 



"HOLY SCRIPTURE," OR "THE CHURCH." 

We are now to return to the main question, and once 
more to compare the two opposing principles, — that 
of the Protestants, that Scripture is the only rule of 
faith; and that of the Romanists, that "God has ap- 
pointed his Church the infallible and unfailing de- 
pository of all truth .''^'^ 

The Protestant rule having been briefly explained 
at the close of the last Essay, it will be advisable 
here to examine closely the difficulties pointed out, 
especially by Dr. Wiseman, in the practical applica- 
tion of that rule. 

We may begin with an observation of the Doctor's, 
that Protestantism, from its very fundamental princi- 
ple, demands of its disciples a course of study and 
investigation, which, to by far the larger proportion 
of mankind is absolutely impossible. He observes — 

" The fundamental principle of Protestantism is 

this, that THE WORD OF GOD ALONE IS THE TRUE 

STANDARD AND RULE OF FAITH. But, to arrive at 
this, there is a long course of complicated and severe 
inquiry. You must, step by step, have satisfied 
yourselves, not merely of the existence of a revela- 
tion; but, that such revelation is really confided to 
man in these very books; that they have been trans- 
mitted to you in such a state, that the originals have 
been so preserved, and the translations so made, as that 
you are confident, that in reading them you are read- 
ing those words which the Spirit of God dictated to 
the prophets and apostles; and, still more, that you 

* Wiseman's First Lecture, p. 10. 



"HOLY SCRIPTURE," OR 

have acquired, or that you possess, the hghts neces- 
sary for you to understand them. You must not only 
be satisfied that the Bible has been given as the 
word of God, but you must be ready to meet the in- 
numerable and complicated difficulties which are 
brought by others against the inspiration of particu- 
lar books, or individual passages; so that you may 
be able to say, that from your own knowledge and 
experience, you are internally convinced, that you 
have in that book the inspired word of God, in the 
first place; and, in the second, that you are not only 
authorized, but competent, to understand it. How 
few, my brethren, are there who can say, that they 
have gone through this important course; and, yet, 
it is the essential ground of Protestantism, that each 
one is to be considered responsible to God for every 
particular doctrine which he professes — that each 
one must have studied the word of God, and must 
have drawn from it the faith which he holds. Unless 
he does all this, he has not complied with those 
conditions which his rehgion imposes upon him; and, 
whatever reasons or motives he may feel or quote 
for being a Protestant, it is manifest that they noways 
lead him essentially to the practical adoption of the 
ground-work of his religion."* 

Now the learned doctor has here availed himself 
of his rhetorical skill to conjure up difficulties and 
obstacles which have no real existence, or which, at 
least, have no peculiar existence in the Protestant 
system. For what does this objection amount to, 
when closely scrutinized ? As applied to the present 
question, the point laboured at by the Doctor, seems 
to be this, that no one can be a sound Protestant, with- 
out a long and painful course of study? — that this is a 
necessary condition of our system, and that as this is 
plainly impossible to the great bulk of mankind, there- 
fore Protestantism cannot be that religion which God 
has given for the comfort and support of all. Now 
this may be answered by a simple recurrence toexpe- 

* Wiseman's First Lecture, p. 8, 9. 



184 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM : 

rience. There is no practical difference in this re- 
spect between the two systems. The bulk of mankind 
must, and in fact always do, receive the first princi- 
ples of their religion, implicitly, or upon credence. 
The Protestant teachers and theologians present to 
the people a book, the Bible, and tell them, what they 
themselves believe, that it is the inspired word of God, 
and the only foundation upon which their religious 
belief can be safely built. Thousands and millions 
accept their assurance; repose their faith in this book; 
either omitting or being incapable of the preliminary 
inquiry, How this book can be proved to be God's 
word; but finding it to be, in their own experience, 
"the power of God to their salvation," they thank- 
fully accept it, cordially attach themselves to it, refuse 
all other rules, and all additions to this rule, and 
finally die, trusting in the testimony which this book 
gives to Christ, and restingtheirsouls with confidence 
on Him. Now these are genuine Protestants, inas- 
much as they receive and adopt the great Protestant 
principle, as Dr. Wiseman himself expresses it, of 
" The Word of God alone, the true Standard 
AND Rule of Faith." And, in the implicit or un- 
philosophical mode of their adherence to their reli- 
gious belief, they are obviously on a par, and really 
far more justifiable than the multitudes who adopt the 
Romish rule; — the church, — without any more in- 
vestigation into the real grounds of their reliance than 
the aforesaid Protestants. The one class receive 
"the bread of life," not always rationally or on philo- 
sophical data; but experience soon sets them fully 
right. They are soon in the predicament of the Sa- 
maritans, who told their towns woman, ^^noiv we be- 
lieve, not because of thy saying; for ive have heard 
him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the 
Christ, the Saviour of the ivorld.^^ John iv. 42. The 
gospel comes to them "m power and in much as- 
surance;'^^ and they know with the best sort of cer- 
tainty, that it is bread indeed that they have received, 
by the spiritual sustentation which their souls have 
derived from it. Nor is their reception of God's word 



OR "THE CHURCH." 185 

altogether implicit and unreasoning. Few Protestant 
pastors entirely omit occasional explanations of the 
external evidences for the Scriptures. They fre- 
quently appeal to the common sense of their people, 
by proofs which are level to all orders of intellect. 
And, amidst all, there is the inherent glory of the 
word itself, declaring, as plainly and undeniably as 
the sun itself, that it is none other than the work of 
God. 

The followers of Rome, on the other hand, adopt 
just as implicitly the faith proposed to them, and rest 
their all upon the foundation of "the church;" not 
knowing, in fact, what " the church" is in which they 
believe; while, instead of after-assurance, derived 
from the experience of their own souls, they find 
nothing better than the false repose of delusion. 

This it may be said, is an assumption of that which 
has yet to be proved. But we were led into this by 
Dr. Wiseman's own equally illegitimate claim. He 
denies the right of any one to the name of Protes- 
tant, until he has first investigated the whole system 
of external evidence. We maintain, on the other 
hand, that the poor man who merely accepts the 
Bible as it is presented to him, clinging to it alone for 
his spiritual hopes, and refusing any other rule or 
guide, is, in so doing, a genuine Protestant. We fur- 
ther add, that the great bulk, both of Protestants and 
Papists, must of necessity take their religious system 
very much on the testimony of others; the great dif- 
ference, however, consisting in this, that the Protes- 
tant, resting upon the simple word of God, cannot be 
mistaken or misled in the security of his foundation, 
while the Romanist not only takes his system quite 
as much upon trust as the most ignorant Protestant, 
but falls into the fatal error of resting his hopes on a 
merely human, and therefore unsafe foundation. This, 
however, is the chief point which we shall have to 
establish in the course of the present argument. Let 
us now consider the reasons assigned by Dr. Wiseman 
for refusing the Holy Scriptures as a sole and sufficient 
rule of faith. 



186 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



Dr. Wiseman objects, that the Scriptures could 
never be intended as the rule of faith to all men, for 
the following reasons: — 

1. " In the first place, before any one can even com- 
mence the examination of that rule, which his church 
proposes to him, he must have satisfied himself that 
all these books or writings, which are collected togeth- 
er in that volume, are really the genuine works of 
those whose names they bear; and that no such gen- 
uine work has been excluded, so that the rule be per- 
fect and entire ; and, in the second place, he must sat- 
isfy himself by his own individual examination, that 
this book is inspired by God." Whereas, "the major- 
ity of Protestants live and remain Protestants with- 
out ever having gone through this course of convic- 
tion."* 

The Doctor then proceeds to observe — 

2. That "all this inquiry is but secondary or pre- 
liminary, when compared with the great investigation 
into the inspiration of the Scriptures. These Scrip- 
tures are inspired ; that is the general, and doubtless 
the true, belief. But on what grounds does it rest? 
Is it a matter of very simple demonstration, or which 
proves itself almost intuitively ?t 

"The authority of history, or of ecclesiastical tra- 
dition, independently of the divine force allowed it by 
the Catholic, can prove no more than the genuineness 
or truth of the Scripture narrative; but to be availa- 
ble as a proof of inspiration, must carry us directly 
to the attestation of the only witnesses capable of 
certifying the circumstance. It may be true, that the 
church or body of Christians, in succeeding times, 
believed the books of the New Testament to be inspi- 
red. But if that church and its traditions are not 
infallible, that belief goes no further than a mere 
human or historical testimony ever can, that is, out- 
ward and visible facts, such as the publication, and 
consequently, the legitimacy, of a work. The only 
way in which it can attest the interior acts which 

* Wiseman's Second Lecture, p. 32, 36. t Ibid, p. 37. 



"HOLY SCRIPTURE," OR "THE CHURCH." 187 

accompanied its compilation is, by preserving the 
assurances of those who, besides God, could alone be 
witnesses to them. Now, ecclesiastical history has 
not preserved to us this important testimony, for 
nowhere have we the record of any of these writers 
having attested his own inspiration. And thus, by 
rejecting tradition as an authority, is the only basis 
for the inspiration of Scripture cut away." 

Now from these two statements, the following con- 
sequence arises: — 

"I have shown that the obstacles and difficulties to 
receiving the Bible as the word of God, are numer- 
ous and complicated; and yet if is the duty of every 
Protestant to believe all that he professes, because he 
has sought and discovered it in the word of God; if 
consequently, it is his duty to be satisfied only on his 
own evidence, as the divines of his church have sta- 
ted; if, to attain this conviction, it is necessary for 
him to go through a long and painful course of learned 
disquisitions; and if, after all these have been encoun- 
tered, he cannot come to a satisfactory demonstration 
of the most important point of inspiration, I ask you 
can the rule, in the approach to which you must pass 
through such a labyrinth of difiiculties, be that which 
God has given us as a guide to the poorest, the most 
illiterate, and simplest of his creatures?" 

But, 3. " If we are to suppose that God gave his 
holy word to be the only rule of faith to all men; it 
must be a rule, therefore, easy to be procured, and to 
be held. God himself must have made the necessary 
provision, that all men should have it, and be able to 
apply it. What, then, does he do? He gives us a 
large volume written in two languages, the chief por- 
tion in one known to a small and limited country of 
the world. He allows that speech to become a dead 
language, so that countless difficulties and obscurities 
should spring up regarding the meaning of innumera- 
ble passages. The other portion he gives in a lan- 
guage spoken by a large body of mankind, but still 
by a very small proportion, considering the extent of 
those to whom the blessings of Christianity were in- 



188 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

tended to be communicated; and he gives this book 
as a satisfactory and sufficient rule. 

" In the first place, then, he expects it to be trans- 
lated into every language, that all men may have 
access to it. In the second place, it must be so dis- 
tributed, that all men may have possession of it; and, 
in the third place, it must be so easy that all men may 
use it. Are these the characteristics of this rule? 
Suppose it to be the only rule of all who believe in 
Christ, are you aware of the difficulty of undertaking 
a translation of it? Whenever the attempt has been 
made, in modern times, in the first instance it has 
generally failed; and even after many repeated at- 
tempts, it has proved unsatisfactory. Had I time, or 
were it necessary, I could show you from various 
reports of the Bible Society, and from the acknow- 
ledgment of its members, that many versions, after 
having been diffused among the natives of countries 
to be converted, have been necessarily withdrawn, on 
account of the absurdities, impieties, and innumerable 
errors which they contained. And this is the rule 
that has been put into the hands of men! But look 
to the history of even more celebrated translations, 
such as are put forth by authority. I speak not of 
those early versions, which were made when the 
knowledge of the facts and circumstances was fresh, 
and when those who wrote better understood the 
language. But look at any modern version, such as 
that authorized in these realms. Read the account 
of how often it was corrected, what combinations of 
able and learned men it required to bring it to a tole- 
rable degree of perfection. Then its worth, as a rule, 
must depend upon the skill and fitness of individuals 
for the task of translating; and we cannot suppose 
that the providence of God would stake the whole 
usefulness and value of his rule upon the private or 
particular abilities of man. And this is the first diffi- 
culty to its being considered the ordinary rule ap- 
pointed of God. 

4. " The gospel's being the rule of faith, can have 
no connection with the circumstance, that the press, 



"HOLY SCRIPTURE," OR "THE CHURCH." 189 

by the aid of the strongest mechanical power applied 
to it, has now produced the Bible in measureless 
abundance. God could not mean, that for fourteen 
hundred years man was to be without a guide; and 
that mankind should have to wait until human genius 
had given efficacy to it by its discoveries and inven- 
tions. Such cannot be the qualities or conditions of 
the rule. We must look for it as one for all times, 
and for all places; as something coming into opera- 
tion as soon as delivered, and destined to last until 
the end of time. We cannot, therefore, admit as the 
only necessary rule of faith, that which depends for its 
adoption on the accidental instrumentality of man, and 
requires essentially his unprescribed co-operation.'' 

Again, 5. "This difficulty of disseminating the 
supposed rule of faith is much exceeded by that of 
understanding it: for to be the rule of faith, it can- 
not be sufficient that men should possess and read it, 
but they must surely be able to comprehend it. In 
fact, who ever heard of the propriety or wisdom of 
placing in men's hands a code, or rule, which it was 
impossible for the greater portion of them to compre- 
hend?" 

And the Doctor thus sums up his statement: — 
"Such, therefore, are the difficulties regarding the 
application of this rule: a difficulty of procuring and 
preserving the proper sense of the original by correct 
translations; a difficulty of bringing this translation 
within the reach of all; a difficulty, not to say an im- 
possibility, of enabling all to understand it."* 

These, then, are Dr. Wiseman's objections to the 
admission of Holy Scripture as the sole rule of faith. 
Our reply naturally divides itself into three allega- 
tions. The first is, that these difficulties suggested 
by the Doctor, if they be real and insuperable, must 
terminate, not in Romanism, but in infidelity: The 
second, that these difficulties, however, are not insu- 
perable, but will be found to disappear on a closer 
examination of the subject: The third, that the Doc- 

* Wiseman's Second Lecture, p. 45—47. 
13 



190 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM : 

tor's own system is beset with not only the same, but 
ten times greater difficulties, and difficulties which 
neither sophistry nor solid reasoning can remove. 

The first of these objections, — that the Doctor's 
arguments lead, not to Popery, but to infidelity, may 
ofTend or startle a sincere Romanist. But why should 
he express surprise or indignation at such a charge? 
One of the Romish clergy, the Rev. Blanco White, 
testifies to this practical result. He tells us, of him- 
self, that while yet a priest, — " The confession is 
painful, indeed, yet it is due to religion — I was bor- 
dering on atheism.^'* If my case were singular, if 
my knowledge of the most enlightened classes of 
Spain did not furnish me with a multitude of sudden 
transitions from the most secure faith and piety to the 
most outrageous infidelity, I would submit to the 
humbling conviction, that either weakness of judg- 
ment or fickleness of character had been the only 
source of my errors. But though I am not at liberty 
to mention individual cases, I do attest, from the most 
certain knowledge, that the history of my own mind 
is, with little variation, that of « great portion of the 
Spanish clergy. ''^^ 

But why recur to words or written confessions? 
Have we not the striking fact upon record, that on 
the nth of November, 1793, the Romish archbishop 
of Paris, with a body of his clergy, appeared at the 
bar of the National Assembly, and there renounced 
Christianity, acknowledging that they had for many 
years been teaching what they believed to be a lie! 
And might we not multiply cases of this sort till a 
volume should be occupied in narrating them? Our 
object, however, is to show, that Dr. Wiseman's 
own principles necessarily lead to infidelity: and we 
only allude to historical facts in corroboration of this 
allegation. 

Our argument is this: Faith, which is the essence 
and life of all real religion, must have some basis on 
which to rest. Now Protestants offer to the inquirer 

» White's Evidence, p. 7, 8. 



"HOLY SCRIPTURE," OR "THE CHURCH." 191 

a sure and safe foundation. They say, " This is the 
word of the Almighty God; upon this you may rea- 
sonably trust your eternal interests." And they 
maintain that the evidence which is accessible to 
every inquiring mind, is sufficient to establish this 
fact, of the Divine Inspiration of the Bible. On the 
other hand, the Romanist denies, with the infidel, the 
sufficiency of this evidence, and plainly affirms that 
only by the authoritative decision of his church, can 
we learn-with any certainly that the Scriptures are 
indeed inspired writings, and therefore infallibly true. 
Instead, therefore, of first establishing the Scriptures 
as our infallible and all-sufficient rule, Dr. Wiseman's 
course is as follows: 

** Let us therefore suppose, that, not content with 
the more compendious method whereby God brought 
us, through baptism and our early instruction, into the 
possession of the faith, we are disposed to investigate 
the authority of its principles; we begin naturally- 
with Scripture — we take up the gospels, and submit 
them to examination. We abstract, for a moment, 
from our belief in their inspiration and divine authori- 
ty — we look at them simply as historical works, in- 
tended for our information, writings from which we 
are anxious to gather such truths as may be useful ta- 
our instruction. We find, in the first place, that to 
these works, whether considered in their substance or 
their form, are attached all those motives of human 
credibility which, we, can possibly require: — that 
there is, throughout them, an absence of every ele- 
ment which could suggest the suspicion, that there 
has been either a desire to deceive, or a possibility of 
having been mistaken. For, we find a body of exter- 
nal testimony sul^cient to satisfy us, that these are 
documents produced at the time when they profess to 
have been written, and that those persons who were 
their authors, whose names they bear. And as these 
were eye-witnesses of what they relate, and give us, 
in their lives and characters, the strongest security of 
their veracity, we conclude all that they have record- 
ed to be certain and true. We thus arrive at the dis- 



192 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



CO very, that besides their mere narrative, they unfold 
to us a system of religion, preached by one who 
wrought the most stupendous miracles to establish 
and confirm the divinity of his mission. In other 
words, we are led by the simple principle of human 
investigation, to an acknowledgment of the authority 
of Christ to teach, as one who came from God: and 
we are thus led to the necessity of yielding implicit 
credence to whatever we find him to have taught. 
So far, the investigation being one of outward and 
visible facts, cannot require any thing more than sim- 
ple, historical, or human evidence. 

" Having once thus established the divine authority 
•of Christ, we naturally inquire. What is it that Christ 
taught? And we find that he was not contented 
merely with teaching certain general principles of 
morality, that he was not satisfied with unfolding to 
mankind doctrines such as none before him had at- 
tempted to teach, and thereby making man acquaint- 
ed with his own fallen nature and with his future 
destiny; but that, moreover, he took means to pre- 
serve those doctrinal communications to mankind. 
We find it obviously his intention that the system he 
established should be beneficial, not only to those who 
lived in his own days, and heard his word, but to the 
entire world, until the end of time; that he intended 
his religion to be something permanent, something 
commensurate with the existence of those wants of 
humanity which he came to relieve; and consequent- 
ly, we naturally ask, in w^hat way the obligations 
which he came to enforce, and the truths which he 
suffered to seal, were to be preserved, and what the 
place wherein they were to be deposited? If they 
were to be perpetual, proper provision must have 
been made for their perpetuation. 

'' Now, the Catholic falls in with a number of very 
strong passages, in which our blessed Saviour, not 
content with promising a continuance of his doctrines, 
that is to say, the continued obligation of faith upon 
man, also pledges himself for their actual preserva- 
tion among them. He selects a certain body of men: 



"HOLY SCRIPTURE," OR "THE CHURCH." 193 

he invests them, not merely with great authority, but 
with power equal to his own; he makes them a 
promise of remaining with them, and teaching among 
them, even to the end of time; and thus, once again, 
he naturally concludes that there must have existed 
for ever a corresponding institution, for the preserva- 
tion of those doctrines, and the perpetuation of those 
blessings which our Saviour came manifestly to com- 
municate. 

"Thus then, merely proceeding by historical rea- 
soning, such as would guide an infidel to believe in 
Christ's superior mission, he comes, from the word of 
Christ, whom those historical motives oblige him to 
believe, to acknowledge the existence of a body, de- 
pository of those doctrines which he came to estab- 
lish among men. This succession of persons consti- 
tuted to preserve those doctrines of faith, appointed 
as the successors of the apostles, having within them 
the guarantee of Christ teaching among them for 
ever; and this body is what he calls the Church. He 
is in possession, from that moment, of an assurance 
of divine authority, and, in the whole remaining part 
of the investigation, he has no need to turn back, by 
caUing in once more the evidence of man. For, from 
the moment he is satified that Christ has appointed a 
succession of men whose province it is, by aid of a 
supernatural assistance, to preserve inviolable those 
doctrines which God has delivered — from that mo- 
ment, whatever these men teach is invested with that 
divine authority, which he had found in Christ through 
the evidence of his miracles. This body, so consti- 
tuted, immediately takes on itself the office of teach- 
ing and informing him that the sacred volume, which 
he had been hitherto treating as a mere history — that 
the document which he had been perusing solely with 
a deep and solemn interest, is a book which com- 
mands a much greater degree of respect and attention, 
than any human motives could possibly bestow. For 
now the church stands forth with that authority 
wherewith she is invested by Christ — and proclaims, 
" Under the guarantee of divine assistance which the 



194 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



words of Christ, in whom you beHeve, have given 
me, I pronounce that this book contains the revealed 
word of God, and is inspired by the Holy Spirit; and 
that it contains all that has a right to enter into the 
sacred collection." And thus the Catholic at length 
arrives, on the authority of the church, at these two 
important doctrines of the canon and the inspiration 
of Scripture, which I endeavoured to show, at our 
last meeting, it was almost, if not quite impossible, to 
reach by any course of ordinary human investiga- 
tion."* 

We find then, that Dr. Wiseman treats the Scrip- 
tures as mere human writings, ordinary though au- 
thentic histories, until he has established the autho- 
rity of the church; and then the church, by her infal- 
lible authority, teaches him the inspired character of 
these books. And here we detect the untenable na- 
ture of his argument: and discern how it naturally 
follows, that when men have rested their belief in 
holy Scripture on this insufficient foundation, they are 
very likely to come, on a more mature consideration, 
to doubt both the one and the other. 

Dr. Wiseman sets out, we must bear in mind, with 
the supposition, that the gospels, in which he is about 
to seek for the church's authority, are to be consi- 
dered '^simply as historical works," and as "a mere 
history." 

Now out of this " mere history," he is to draw 
proofs sufficient to establish, — not any light matter, 
but the institution of an infallible body of spiritual 
teachers and rulers, and the consequent duty, incum- 
bent on every human being, of absolute, uncondi- 
tional submission to the teaching of the church^^ 
It will surely be admitted, that to place this im- 
mense demand upon a clear and unquestionable foun- 
dation, must require a weight of evidence altogether 
overwhelming. 

But what are the proofs Dr. W. adduces, for the 

* Wiseman's Third Lecture, pp. 62 — 65. 
t Wiseman's First Lecture, p. 17. 



"HOLY SCRIPTURE," OR "THE CHURCH." 195 

establishment of this, the one fundamental point in 
his whole system ? We quote his own words. 

"Now (in reading the gospels) the Catholic falls 
in with a number of very strong passages, in which 
our blessed Saviour, not content with procuring a 
continuance of his doctrine, that is to say, the conti- 
nued obligation of faith upon man, also pledges him- 
self for their actual preservation among them. He 
selects a certain body of men; he invests them not 
merely with great authority, but with power equal to 
his own; he makes them a promise of remaining with 
them, and teaching among them, even to the end of 
time,"* &c. 

Here, however, we have nothing but Dr. Wise- 
man's own assertion, that in the gospels he finds "a 
number of very strong passages" establishing his in- 
fallible church. We still require to have those pas- 
sages pointed out. And, accordingly in his next 
lecture (the fourth) the Dr. proceeds to quote, — 

1. "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, 
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am 
with you always, even unto the end of the world." — 
Matt, xxviii. 18 — 20. 

2. "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give 
you another Comforter, that he may abide with you 
for ever: even the Spirit of truth, whom the world 
cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither 
knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth 
with you, and shall be in you." — John xiv. 16, 17. 

3. "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he 
will guide you into all truth." — John xvi. 3. 

4. "Upon this rock will I build my church; and 
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. 
xvi. 18. 

5. " Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto 

» Wiseman's Third Lecture, pp. 63, 64. 



196 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I 
you.'^ John xx. 21. 

6. "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that 
despiseth you despiseth me ; and he that despiseth me 
despiseth him that sent me." Luke x. 16. 

Now these six texts are all that we find adduced 
by Dr. Wiseman in support of his assertion, that in 
the gospels he meets with "a number of very strong 
passages,'^ "in which Christ invests ^ the church' with 
power equal to his own.^^ Let us then, in the next 
place, carefully consider whether, on any reasonable 
view of the case, the infallible authority and do- 
minion of Dr. Wiseman's church can be admitted to 
be proved by these six passages. 

But we do not propose to enter upon a critical ex- 
amination of these texts. Our inquiry is rather a 
preliminary one. It concerns merely the external, 
rather than the internal value of this evidence. It is 
not what these passages declare ? — but with what 
force and authority are their declarations accom- 
panied? For we must bear in mind that it is only as 
" mere histories" that we are to receive these records. 
That the gospels are inspired we cannot know, ac- 
cording to Dr. Wiseman's argument, until we first 
submit to the church's teaching, and receive her as- 
surance that they are so. Up to that point they can 
be admitted merely and " simply as historical works:" 
as "human testimony;" as "the evidence of man."* 

Well, then, we are to take up the book of Matthew, 
or of John, precisely as we take up Josephus, or 
Bede. Such is Dr. Wiseman's injunction, and we 
are now endeavouring to follow out his reasonings 
to their practical results. 

But no mere human historian ever yet produced a 
narrative on which, in all its points, and in every 
particular, we could wholly and satisfactorily rely. 
The utmost merit that the highest of such writers has 
ever yet reached, is that of honesty, — of faithfulness, 

* Wiseman's Third Lecture, 62, 64, 67. 



"HOLY SCRIPTURE," OR "THE CHURCH." 197 

— of not intending to deceive. No man living will 
venture to declare his perfect belief in every word 
set down in either Livy or Tacitus, Josephus or 
Eusebius. General accuracy, and an evident desire 
to narrate things as they really occurred, is the very 
utmost praise that can be awarded to any " mere hu- 
man historian." 

Take up, then, these three writers, Matthew and 
Luke and John, and see what is the amount and 
weight of their testimony, considered under all these 
qualifications. 

The matter in question concerns certain brief ex- 
pressions of Christ, uttered by him about a. d. 28 and 
29. Now the first question is, when were these words 
of Christ recorded? At what time were the books in 
which they are set down written? 

The answer to this inquiry is, that Matthew, ac- 
cording to Irenseus, wrote his gospel about a. d. 61: 
Luke composed his about a. d. 63 or 64; and John, 
his, not much before his death, in a. d. 100. So that 
many years, as far as we know, passed away, before 
these few sentences of Christ's utterings were so much 
as written down. 

Now, we would desire, at every step we take, to 
have it distinctly understood, that it is Dr. JViseman's 
view of the case, and not our own, ih3.i we are endea- 
vouring to follow out to its legitimate results. Our 
own course would he first to ascertain the inspiration 
of the holy Scriptures, and then to submit to their 
decisions on all points; but this would not answer 
Dr. Wiseman's purpose. It is necessary for his end, 
(which is to force us to submit to the authority of 
his church.) to persuade us that until we do so sub- 
mit ourselves, there can be no rest for the soles of our 
feet; and accordingly he would have us believe that 
without receiving her decisions we can never know 
whether the Scriptures are inspired or not. But we 
must contend, on the other hand, that by this course 
of proceeding, we shall reach no end, except that of 
believing nothing at all. For the "mere human 
testimony'^ of two or three ordinary " historians," 



198 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM 



can never establish so momentous a fact as the insti- 
tution of an infalUble church. And this we shall 
presently see. 

Matthew and Luke appear to have set down, about 
thirty years after they were uttered, certain words of 
Christ; — and John, about forty years after this, cer- 
tain other words. Now if we had first ascertained 
the point, that these writers were guided by the inspi- 
ration of the Holy Spirit, we should admit without 
hesitation, as we ought to do, that these few sentences 
are recorded with perfect accuracy. But if Dr. Wise- 
man insists on our taking these records as "m_ere hu- 
man testimonies," and as the '* evidence of man," then 
we are obliged to tell him that no mere man, unas- 
sisted by a higher power, could ever set down the 
actual words of a conversation, thirty, forty, or sixty 
years after it' occurred, without considerable varia- 
tions from the words actually used. Conducting, 
then, the inquiry on Dr. Wiseman's own plan, taking 
the concluding words of the history penned by Mat- 
thew, and considering it "simply as an historical 
record," a mere "human testimony," we can only 
receive it as we would receive all other "historical 
works" of good character; and observing that the 
conversation alluded to was not recorded until about 
thirty years after it had taken place, we come to the 
conclusion which every one would adopt in a similar 
case, — putting inspiration out of the question — and 
suppose that something of the general tenor of what 
is there set down, did actually occur. We might 
even go further than this, and say, that had the nar- 
ratives of the evangelists been penned at the very 
time when the events took place, it would still be un- 
reasonable to rest so vast a question as this on the 
accuracy with which a "mere historian" had reported 
a few words of a conversation. A well known anec- 
dote will illustrate this point. 

After one of the battles of Frederick the Great, 
king of Prussia, that monarch desired to inform him- 
self, on the same afternoon, as to some circumstance 
which had occurred in a part of the field from which 



"HOLY SCRIPTURE," OR "THE CHURCH." 199 

he himself had been absent. He called round him 
all the principal officers who had been on the spot, 
and required a distinct account of the affair. But 
instead of receiving at once a clear and consistent 
narrative of the transaction, he found every one of 
the witnesses differing from the other on some impor- 
tant point, so that it was almost impossible to arrive 
at any clear understanding, even on a matter which 
had occurred only a few hours before. Perplexed by 
this confusion and contradiction, the king turned to 
one of his friends, and exclaimed, "And this then is 
history!'' 

We might add another instance of the state of doubt 
into which we necessarily fall, when we come to deal 
with " mere histories." Take the case of Fox's Book 
of Martyrs. Here is a work which was produced at 
the very time when the most interesting facts narrated 
in it, occurred. Protestants generally believe the nar- 
ratives contained in it to be true and faithful. They 
rely upon it as a correct account of real facts. But 
Dr. Milner, in his " End of Controversy," can find no 
better term for it than " Fox's lying book of Mar- 
tyrs," — " Fox's ponderous folio of falsehoods." Thus 
we get into the region of dispute and controversy, 
the moment we attempt to rely upon the credit of any 
"mere history." 

We desire, however, not to be mistaken. We are 
not disputing the credibility of the Evangelists. We 
believe that we are bound by the strongest reasons to 
accept their narratives as most literally and exactly 
true and faithful. But we arrive at this conclusion 
onlj/ by first ascertaining their inspiration. Dr. 
Wiseman, in opposition to this view, persists in argu- 
ing that their inspiration can only be gathered from 
the infallible decision of the Romish church. Then, 
if we ask him how he proves the infallibility of the 
said church? he adduces five or six passages from 
the gospels, which gospels we are to take, he says, as 
" mere human histories." And it is here that onr ob- 
jection comes in. We maintain that his whole argu- 
ment fails, inasmuch as it is wholly irrational, — look- 



200 " ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

ing at the evangelists as "mere human historians," — 
to suppose that they were capable of setting down, 
with perfect accuracy, in the year 61, or 64, or 100, 
the very words of a conversation which took place 
A. D. 29. If we are to look upon them in this light, 
we must necessarily receive their account of these 
transactions with some doubt and abatement. We 
cannot profess to believe that the words reported by 
them, were the very identical words spoken by Christ; 
and thus the degree of authority conferred on the 
apostles, and the fact of infallibility itself, said to re- 
side in the church, come to be altogether a matter of 
doubt. We say that this is the only reasonable way 
of considering the matter; and we tell Dr. Wiseman, 
in the plainest terms, that it is wholly impossible to 
establish an infallible church upon the "mere human 
testimony" of a fallible historian. We can never 
submit to so immense an authority, we can never 
realize so awful, so momentous a fact, as that of the 
estabUshment of an unerring tribunal among men, on 
any mandate lower than that of God himself. He 
himself must speak, who alone could establish and 
empower such a tribunal, and we must know, with- 
out the possibility of a doubt, that it is He that speaks, 
and that we have His very words before us. Mere 
human testimony, — the evidence of a "simple his- 
tory" cannot suffice, for no mere history was ever 
produced by man in which a thousand errors were 
not discernible, and if error can have taken place here^ 
our ground of confidence is gone. Nothing, in fact, 
but the voice of inspiration will suffice in this case. 
But Dr. Wiseman plainly tells us that "the only 
basis for the inspiration of the Scriptures," is, the 
church's infallibility; that we must, in short admit the 
infallibility of the church, and then receive her deci- 
sion that Scripture is inspired, or we can never arrive 
at any certainty of its inspiration at all. We on the 
other hand, have made it clear, we trust, that nothing 
but God's own word, nothing less than the voice of 
inspiration clearly ascertained, can suffice to estab- 
lish an infallible authority; and thus are we inevita- 



OR " THE CHURCH." 201 

bly brought, on Dr. Wiseman's views, to the fearful 
conckision of beheving neither the Scriptures nor the 
church; of believing, in short, nothing! 

But it may perhaps, be objected, that both parties 
admit the inspiration of the Scriptures, and should 
not, therefore, quarrel so much about the mode in 
which this inspiration is proved; the result appearing 
to be the same. 

But it is not the same. We, the Protestants, con- 
tend that the inspiration of the Scriptures is capable 
of clear and irrefragable proof, on the most sufficient 
grounds, admitted among men in ordinary cases. We 
assert that the evidence of their divine character is 
such, that men are left without excuse, if they refuse 
to listen to them as to the word of God. This is one 
of our chief controversies with the infidel. Now Dr. 
Wiseman and the Romish controversialists come in 
here, and first side with the infidel. They tell us that 
it is impossible to establish our case, in the way, and 
by the reasonings which we bring forward. They 
add, indeed, that the Scriptures are really inspired, 
but they go on to say, that the only way by which 
they have arrived at the knowledge of this fact, and 
the only way by which it can be established at all, is 
by the authoritative decision of the church. The 
church, that is the Romish church, "stands forth,'^ to 
use Dr. Wiseman's own words, — " with that authority 
wherewith she is invested by Christ" — and proclaims, 
" Under that guarantee of divine assistance which the 
words of Christ, in whom you believe, have given 
me, I pronounce that this book contains the revealed 
word of God, and is inspired by the Holy Spirit; and 
that it contains all that has a right to enter into the 
sacred collection." 

Thus the Romanist first takes part with the infidel, 
and declares it to be useless to attempt to prove the 
inspiration of the Scriptures by any ordinary course 
of proofs or arguments. And having thus deprived 
us, as far as it is in his power, of every valid and suf- 
ficient argument, he offers us instead, one wholly 
illogical and untenable, one which no astute and 



202 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

clear headed infidel will ever be satisfied with. " The 
Scriptures are inspired," he says, " though this cannot 
be proved by fair argument:" — "The Scriptures are 
inspired, and you ought to believe it, because the 
church declares it." Now nothing more palpably 
illogical than this was ever proposed to the reasoning 
faculties of men. The Romanist is arguing with the 
unbeliever, with one as yet unsatisfied either with 
the divine authority of the Scriptures, or the divine 
commission of the church. And he tells him, "You 
must receive the Scriptures as inspired, for such is 
the decision of the church." The infidel naturally 
rejoins, "But why am I to submit to the decision of 
the church that they are so?" The answer is, "Be- 
cause the Scriptures assure us of the church's inability 
to err." " So that," the infidel would reply, "I am 
to receive as divine, a book which I take to be a 
mere device of priestcraft, merely because those priests 
tell me that it is divine. And if I ask why I am to 
submit to their decision, and believe what is contrary 
to common sense, the answer is, that this book, which 
I rather imagine they manufactured themselves, de-' 
clares them to be infallible! But this is too gross an 
imposition to pass with me. Just as reasonably might 
I become a Mahometan at once. For did not Ma- 
homet declare the Koran to be the inspired word of 
God, given by him, and did not the Koran in return 
assert Mahomet to be the chosen prophet of God? 
Here is just the same sort of false reasoning. In fact, 
what should prevent any set of religious impostors, 
in any age of the world, from concocting a pretended 
revelation, describing them as the anointed messen- 
gers of God, and then assuming to themselves this 
infallible authority, and insisting upon the reception 
of these writings upon their authoritative decision that 
Ihey were inspired. Or, to take a more familiar case. 
Two unknown persons enter my house, and propose 
to me to entrust some important matter to them. I 
have doubts as to both of them. But the first assures 
me of the honour and integrity of the second, and the 
second vouches for the character of the first. Have 



" HOLY SCRIPTURE," OR, " THE CHURCH." 203 

I any real guarantee in this, their mutual recommen- 
dation? Is there any thing more in it than two im- 
postors might offer with the utmost ease?*' 

Dr. Wiseman, however, has attempted to reply to 
this objection. He says, " But some, perhaps, will 
say 'these are mutual and consequently insufficient 
testimonies; you believe that the Scripture first 
teaches you the church, and then that the church 
teaches you the Scripture.' 

" To this I might reply, that there is a fallacy in 
the very reasoning. When an ambassador presents 
himself before a sovereign, he is asked, where are his 
credentials? He presents them, and on the strength 
of them he is acknowledged as as an ambassador; so 
that he himself first presents that document, whereby 
alone his mission and authority are subsequently es- 
tablished." 

"But in fact the argument is falsely stated. We 
do not believe the church on the authority of Scrip- 
ture, properly so called; we believe it on the authority 
of Christ; and if his commands in her regard, were 
recorded in any other book which we felt ourselves 
bound to believe, although uninspired, we should re- 
ceive them and consequently the authority of the 
church, equally as now."* 

This reply virtually concedes the point for which we 
are contending. It consists of two parts — First, the 
illustration of an ambassador, of which the Romish 
controversialists are very fond. He says, "When an 
ambassador presents himself before a sovereign, he is 
asked, where are his credentials? He presents them, 
and on the strength of them, he is acknowledged as 
an ambassador; so that he himself first presents the 
documents whereby his mission and authority are 
established." Now here it is plainly implied, that 
the ambassador has with him credentials, of the 
real character of which there is no doubt. A person 
presenting himself at court, whose person was wholly 
unknown, and whose real character and mission was 

* Wiseman's Third Lecture, p. 65. 



204 ESSAYS ON eomanism: 

doubtful, would not find the difficulty cleared up by 
presenting papers respecting which there was the 
same doubt as concerning himself. His credentials 
might, indeed, establish his credit, but only if their 
own character was perfectly indubitable. And just 
so w.e contend, that the church can never establish 
such a claim as that of infallibility, on less than in- 
spired authority. She must first of all commence 
with this. Mere human testimony, which may be 
full of error, will not suffice. 

A word misplaced, a phrase omitted, things which 
constantly occur in every human author, may entirely 
change the sense of any passage. And so, when Dr. 
Wiseman says, in his second observation, that "we 
do not believe the church upon the authority of Scrip- 
ture, properly so called; we believe it on the author- 
ity of Christ; and if his commands in her regard, 
were recorded in any other book which we felt our- 
selves bound to believe, although uninspired, we 
should receive them and consequently the authority 
of the church, equally as now;" it is again clear that 
he is obliged to assume the inspiration of the gospels, 
to make his argument a valid one. Our only cer- 
tainty that we have "the authority of Christ" in the 
gospels, rests on their inspiration. Without this all is 
doubtful and uncertain. And thus we see that it is 
absolutely impossible for the Romish church ever to 
construct a single argument of even apparent consist- 
ency, without somehow or other assuming this neces- 
sary point. And yet she persists in denying the pos- 
sibility of knowing the inspiration of Scripture with- 
out her aid, and thus leaves herself, at last, without 
any solid defence against the infidel. 

Let us now endeavour to bring the view we have 
been taking, into the compass of a few sentences. 
The point we have endeavoured to establish is this — 
that the objections brought against the Protestant rule 
of faith by Dr. Wiseman and others, tend, if followed 
to their just and logical consequences, to settle the 
reasoner's mind, not in Romanism, but in infidehty. 
This we prove as follows: 



"HOLY SCRIPTURE," OR "THE CHURCH." 205 

The Protestant, feeling the want of a rule of faith, 
a sure and infalhble guide, to conduct him safely 
towards the unseen world, examines the evidences in 
favour of the authenticity and inspiration of the Holy 
Scriptures. These evidences he finds to be amply 
sufficient; and he is thus brought to see that the Bible 
is, in very deed, the Word of God. From this in- 
stant it becomes his Infallible Guide, the guide of his 
steps, the safeguard of his way. 

But the Romanist, seeing that if the Bible is thus 
enthroned in its rightful dominion, there will be little 
chance of establishing the authority of his church, 
denies, not only that the Scriptures were ever intended 
to occupy this place, but he denies also that their inspi- 
ration and divine character can thus be ascertained 
without the interference or aid of his church. He 
boldly takes the infidel line of argument, arrays in 
opposition all the difficulties and discrepancies that he 
can muster; and finally concludes that it is only by 
first admitting the authority of his church that we can 
come to know that the Scriptures are inspired. 

But imagine for a moment that this point is con^ 
ceded to the Rcraanist, and that we are thus deprived 
of the rule which we fancied we possessed — namely, 
the unerring word of God. We now pause for a mo- 
ment, and look around for some guide in this wilder- 
ness — some friendly pilot, by which we may reach 
the haven of eternal rest. And what is proffered to 
us? The church? Well, then, of course we ask 
whether the evidence in favour of the church is 
clearer, stronger, and more unembarrassed with diffi- 
culties than that in favour of the Bible. If we were 
not to lake the inspiration of the Scriptures for grant- 
ed, of course we must not be asked to take the divine 
authority of the church for granted either. What, 
then, are the credentials of the church? what is the 
evidence of her divine commission, — evidence so 
clear, so indisputable, that all that can be adduced in 
favour of the inspiration of the Scriptures shrinks 
from comparison with it? 

The evidence by which this church of Rome estab- 

14 



206 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

lishes her divine commission, is stated by Dr. Wise- 
man to be nothing more than five or six passages in 
certain old books, written by Matthew, and Luke, and 
John, about eighteen hundred years since. These old 
books Dr. Wiseman will not permit us to look upon as 
inspired, — for until we have first ascertained the 
church's commission, and received her decision as to 
their inspiration, we must only consider them as 
" mere historians." But in these old writings we find 
five or six passages, not designating Rome, any more 
than Constantinople; not pointing to the pope, any 
more than to the archbishop of Canterbury; but pro- 
mising a general presence and blessing to the disci- 
ples of Christ in all ages. 

And upon these five or six passages. Dr. Wiseman 
builds the assumption, that Christ appointed the pope 
and the college of cardinals at Rome to govern the 
church in all ages, making their decisions infallible 
andwithout appeal; and that the duty of all mankind 
is neither more nor less than that of ^'absolute, un- 
conditional submission to the teaching of the 
church.*' This church then becomes our infallible 
RULE, and we now receive the Scriptures at her hands, 
and believe them to be the word of God, merely be- 
cause she declares them to be so! 

But this scheme is not logically tenable. We will 
not now discuss the passages cited; their bearing and 
import may be more or less absolute and distinct. 
But we will merely observe, that if we are to take 
them as ordinary "human historians," and to accept 
their narratives just as we should those of other par- 
ties, writing, like them, many years after the occur- 
rences related took place, we must necessarily look 
upon every sentence, every word, in fact, of these five 
or six passages, as being more or less uncertain. The 
inspiration of the writers being put out of view, there 
is not a word of these few brief passages, of the accu- 
racy of which we can feel positively assured. What 
really occurred may have been, by the omission or 
addition of a word or two, materially altered. Upon 
such a basis as this, therefore, it is idle to think of 



"HOLY SCRIPTURE," OR "THE CHURCH." 207 

resting so vast an edifice as an infallible tribunal. As 
well might we attempt to erect St. Peter's on a quick- 
sand. The attempt utterly fails. 

The result, then, is as follows: The Romanist first 
takes part with the sceptic in denying the possibility 
of establishing the divine inspiration of the Scriptures: 
He then endeavours to rear up an infallible and di- 
vinely commissioned authority in the room of the 
Scriptures, — but upon no better foundation than a few 
brief sentences of two or three "mere historians," 
who, of course, might err, might be misinformed, or 
might misconstrue what they heard. This attempt 
necessarily fails; and having previously declared it 
impossible to ascertain the inspiration of the Scriptures 
without the aid of the Church, the poor Romanist is 
necessarily left, if he conducts the inquiry with logi- 
cal precision, without any escape from the gulf of 
infidelity. 



208 



XL— THE PROTESTANT RULE OF FAITH. 



THE GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE HOLY SCRIP- 
TURES. 

Proceeding with the consideration of Dr. Wiseman's 
objections to the Scriptures as a Rule of Faith, we 
are now to enter upon the second point, — that the 
difficulties raised by Dr. W. in the way of an ordinary 
and unlearned person, are not of that serious or in- 
surmountable character which he would have us to 
suppose. And perhaps it will be the most satisfac- 
tory method, if we follow, step by step. Dr. W.'s own 
argument. * 

His first difficulty, as he himself states it, is this: 
that '• before any one can even commence the exami- 
nation of that rule, which his church proposes to him, 
he must have satisfied himself, that all those books or 
writings, which are gathered together in that volume, 
are really the genuine works of those whose names 
they bear; and that no such genuine work has been 
excluded, so that the rule be perfect and entire."* In 
other words, he must be convinced that the Scriptures 
are authentic documents, and that the canon has 
been so settled as to be clear and indisputable. Now 
we trust that there will be little difficulty in showing, 
that the proofs and evidences on these points are so 
clear, so abundant, and so accessible, as to offer 
to every candid inquirer absolute demonstration, and 
that^ by means of an investigation, which need be 
neither laborious nor prolonged. 

This investigation, however, concerns two distinct 

* Wiseman'KS Second Lecture, p. 32. 



THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES. 209 

questions. We have the Hebrew Scriptures, or the 
books of Moses and the prophets, which were en- 
trusted to the Jewish church, and which, under God's 
providence, were kept entire and pure from error by 
that church. And we have also the Greek Scriptures, 
or the books of the New Testament, of which the 
Jewish people never had charge, but which were de- 
posited with the Christian church, and which that 
church, like the Jewish, has preserved whole and 
unconfounded with any spurious productions. This 
point, indeed, is worthy of remark, and ought to call 
for our grateful admiration. Both the Jewish church 
and the Christian have fallen into great sins and 
backslidings; but still that one peculiar duty which 
God put upon them, he took care that they should 
accurately fulfil. To the Jews " were committed the 
oracles of God," so far as the Hebrew prophets had 
declared those oracles; and to the Christian church, 
the like records concerning the gospel. The Jewish 
church even denied and crucified the Lord of glory, 
and was driven into exile and slavery for that crime; 
— but still this especial duty of bearing witness to 
the "holy oracles" was never forgotten, and to this 
hour that witness is borne, and those oracles are pre- 
served, even in the midst of total apostasy and rejec- 
tion of the gospel. The ancient Christian churches, 
too, as first planted at Jerusalem, at Antioch, and at 
Rome, have fallen into fearful error and apostasy; 
but still the duty of bearing witness 'to the oracles 
committed to them is in force, and that witness they 
do accordingly bear, Thus the Jewish church is per- 
fectly clear and unfaltering in her testimony to the 
Jewish Scriptures; and the Christian churches, in- 
cluding even Rome herself, bear equally unhesitating 
witness to the Christian records. Each, in its own 
department, fully discharges the duty laid upon it. 
And thus it comes to pass, that the only apocryphal 
or doubtful writings which at all interfere with the 
clearness of this testimony, are those which Rome 
has endeavoured to add, not to her own sacred de- 
posit, the Christian records, but to those of the Jews, 



210 ESSAYS ON eomanism: 

— to those with which, as keeper, she had no con- 
cern. In her own department, — the care of the books 
of the New Testament, — even Rome herself was not 
permitted to go astray; but in that in which she had 
no office or function, the care of the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures, she was left to follow her own devices, and to 
do what mischief she could. But let it be always 
remembered, that the Jews, the keepers of the He- 
brew Scriptures, are perfectly decided in their evi- 
dence as to what those Scriptures comprehend; and 
the Christian churches, which have the charge of the 
New Testament, are equally agreed on the canon of 
that part of holy writ. The only dispute has arisen 
from the church of Rome having gone out of its own 
province, and assumed the right of adding to the 
canon of the Jewish Scriptures, with the settlement 
of which she had nothing whatever to do. 

Having made this remark in passing, we will now 
come to the main subject. Probably it will be the 
best course to take each of these two series by itself, 
and to begin with the Greek Scriptures, the books of 
the New Testament. Dr. Wiseman's objection is, — 
that great difficulties meet the inquirer who wishes 
to ascertain, 1st. that all these books or writings are 
really the genuine works of those whose names they 
bear; and, 2d. that nothing has been omitted or 
excluded which ought by right to form part of the 
series. 

To this question we will now address ourselves. 
And first, let us bear in mind the universal experi- 
ence of mankind, as to the difficulty, or rather the 
impossibility, of gaining credence and establishment 
for a forged work, especially if the matter contained 
in that work be of any importance or interest to 
mankind generally. We are told that David Hume, 
about a century ago, wrote and published a History 
of England. There is no one, of course, now living, 
who can at all attest the fact, from his own know- 
ledge, that this very man Hume did write that iden- 
tical book; and yet the man who refuses to believe 
that fact would be justly considered as little better 



THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES. 211 

than a fool. And why? First, because the book 
has been universally received, in our own time, and 
in that of our fathers, as that of the author whose 
name it bears; and, ,9econfl?/y, because an immense 
body of corroborative evidence is accessible, consist- 
ing of the testimonies of various persons of that and 
succeeding periods, all testifying to the fact, that such 
a man did actually live at the time in question, and 
that he did write and publish that book. 

But may not the public of that day have been de- 
ceived into the reception of a spurious work; and may 
not the writers in question have been involved in the 
same error ? Such questions are best answered by 
inquiring, whether it would be easy, at the present 
instant, to gain credit for a forgery, purporting to be 
two additional volumes of the same history ? 

Every one at all acquainted with such matters, 
knows in an instant that the thing would be impossi- 
ble. The imposture would be instantly detected, and 
the forgery, if it were remembered at all at a distance 
of fifty years hence, would only be remembered as a 
forgery. 

General reception, then, is the strongest possible 
evidence for the authenticity of any work. Why do 
we entirely believe that Thucydides and Herodotus 
wrote the histories which bear their names, or that 
Virgil produced a poem called "the ^neid," or Mil- 
ton one entitled " Paradise Lost ?" Because we know 
by abundant experience, that an imposition upon the 
whole body of intelligent and educated men who are 
living at any one time, is, in any matter of moment, 
absolutely impossible; and that consequently, if a 
whole generation of such men have admitted a fact of 
this kind, the evidence of its truth is little short of that 
of our own senses. 

Upon these principles we receive the works of 
various celebrated heathens, who lived in the same 
age with the evangelists and apostles, — such as Livy, 
Caesar, and Seneca, — although we have not, for any 
one of their works, evidence of the hundredth part of 
the strength of that which confirms the authenticity 



212 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

of the Greek Scriptures. We receive them without a 
doubt. Not a dissentient voice, among all the philoso- 
phers and learned men, whether Christian or infidel, 
ventures to suggest the least ground for hesitation. 
And, in fact, any man who plainly declared his dis- 
belief in the genuineness of Caesar's Commentaries, 
would be instantly set down, by all competent judges 
as an irrational person, or in other words, as all but 
an idiot. 

But it may be said, that this is all very well in the 
case of mere human works, the truth and authenticity 
of which may be of small importance; but that we 
must require, in a case of this vast and momentous 
kind, some higher evidence than mere human testi- 
mony ? 

Let us, however, reflect for a moment, what it is 
that we are asking. God has given to mankind a 
book, which is intended to be " a light unto their 
steps, and a lamp unto their path.^' We are not now 
to enter on that part of the subject, or we should urge, 
in the first place, that the intrinsic character of such a 
work must be its strongest evidence of authenticity. 
The book of God must be such a book as no human 
being could indite. Jlnd the Bible is such a hook. 
But we must not open this part of the question. We 
keep to external evidence, and remark, in the first 
place, that it were wholly unreasonable to expect that 
God, having given such a book to man, should set 
aside the laws of nature, and should himself, by a 
personal manifestation, or by an angelic messenger, 
place it in each individual's hand, as his immediate 
gift, supernaturally conveyed. Abundantly sufficient 
is it, if this book be not only found, when examined, 
to be such as God alone could have dictated; but if its 
authenticity and genuineness, as the true and real pro- 
duction of certain inspired prophets and apostles, 
whose names are thereunto affixed, and whose histo- 
ries are fully known, be made not only as clear as 
the genuineness of other works, but a hundred times 
more so. And this has been done, as we shall now 
proceed to show. 



THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES. 213 

Confining ourselves, at present, to the point of the 
genuineness and authenticity of these books, we first 
propose this view of the case: 

Suppose the inquirer to have been born about the 
year of our Lord, 110, or shortly after the death of 
John, he would then have found, when he came to 
man's estate, a certain book, preserved among the 
Christian churches, which was called John's gospel, 
or the history of Christ written by him. This book 
he would have found every where held, by these 
Christians, in high esteem, being copied, read, and 
preserved among them as a document of the highest 
value. 

Of John himself, his labours, his character, and the 
certainty of his having really written the book in 
question, he would have found many who could tes- 
tify of their own personal knowledge. Enemies, too, 
there would be, but not one of these ever thought of 
questioning the fact, that the apostle was in truth the 
author of the said book. 

Now, under these circumstances, what could he do 
but fully admit and believe this fact, that the book in 
question was really produced by John? And having 
thus received it, he would naturally teach the same 
thing to the generation which succeeded him, and 
they, in their turn, to that which followed. It is thus 
that we know that David Hume wrote a history of 
England, and John Bunyan, "The Pilgrim's Pro- 
gress." And if we begin to object to this sort of testi- 
mony, we shall very soon come to deny that there 
ever was such a person as Bonaparte, or such an 
event as the battle of Waterloo. 

We have thus placed ourselves in imagination in 
the second century. But may we not as well deal 
with the fact as it is, and show how we now, in the 
nineteenth century, assure ourselves of the authenti- 
city of these books? Let us ask, first, how do we 
satisfy ourselves of similar matters concerning other 
documents. For instance, as a late writer asks, " How 
do we know that the survey of England, called Dooms- 
day Book, was written in the eleventh century? I 



214 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

apply the like arguments. We received by distinct 
transmission the historical fact. It was matter of re- 
cord. It has been referred to by contemporary and 
all succeeding historians. It has been appealed to in 
our courts of law, from a. d. 1 100 to the present time. 
I am, therefore, just as certain of the authenticity of 
this celebrated document, as if I had lived at the 
period when it was first compiled."* 

Or, to go back to the very period of our own sacred 
books; how do we ascertain the genuineness of any 
of the great Roman authors of the Augustan age — of 
the writings of Seneca, for instance, who was put to 
death by Nero, about a. d. 68, or very near the time 
of the martyrdom of Paul ? " I answer, on the same 
principle as before, because I can trace up the book 
from the present age, in successive reference or quo- 
tation, through each preceding age to the very time 
in which he lived. I turn to Tacitus, the celebrated 
contemporary historian, whose writings have been in 
every one's hand ever since, and there Iread the ac- 
count of Seneca. I turn to Quintilian, who flourished 
within twenty years of Seneca's death, and there I 
find a criticism on his works. From that day to the 
present I see those works referred to, quoted, com- 
mended, blamed, by men of different classes, ages, 
nations, and opinions, in opposition to each other in 
almost every other respect, but all agreeing as to the 
authenticity of these books, I have here all the evi- 
dence I could desire. I am as certain of the historical 
fact concerning the writings of Seneca, as I should 
have been if I had lived at the time.^t 

But we assert something more than this. We assert 
that the evidence in favour of the genuineness of the 
books of the New Testament, is far stronger than that 
in favour of any other ancient books whatever. And 
it is so, to a degree which sets all comparison at de- 
fiance. We may particularize: 

1. The testimonies borne to them by indepen- 

* Wilson's Evidences, vol. i. p. 71. 
t Wilson's Evidences, vol. i. p. 72. 



THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES. 215 

dent writers, both friendly and unfriendly to their 
contents. 

2. The immense number of ancient manuscript 
copies, which are found in every part of the world. 

3. The evidence of facts which are open to our 
own observation, and which confirm the statements 
therein made. 

Let us begin with the testimony borne to them by 
authors of every age. 

We receive the writings of Seneca, as has just been 
observed, because we find his history recorded in 
Tacitus, an historian of that day; because we find 
Quintilian, a writer immediately following him, criti- 
cising his works as known and authentic produc- 
tions, and because we find those writings preserved, 
referred to, quoted, and handed down to us, through 
each successive age from that in which he hved to 
the present. Now let us try the New Testament by 
a similar rule. 

The first disciples of the apostles, like the apostles 
themselves, were not selected from the wise or learn- 
ed of the earth, nor could we expect to find many re- 
mains of their writings. Yet there are fragments 
now extant of no less than six of the fellow-labourers 
of the apostles ; Clement, Hermas, Barnabas, Igna- 
tius, Polycarp, and Papias, all of whom were per- 
sonally acquainted with the apostles, and who, even 
in the short pieces of their production which still re- 
main, cite the books of the New Testament as works 
universally known and admitted as of authority 
among Christians, not fewer than two hundred and 
twenty times. 

In the next century this testimony becomes still 
more extensive. We have thirty-six writers, whose 
works, in whole or in part, have come down to us, 
and so numerous are their citations, that a large part 
of the New Testament might be collected from their 
writings. Justin Martyr, for instance, — who was 
born A. D. 89, and died a. d. 164, gives us nearly two 
hundred quotations. We also find abundant evidence 
in these writers, that the Scriptures were at this time 



216 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM; 



customarily read in the churches, that they were col- 
lected into volumes, and that translations of them 
into other languages were then carrying on. 

In the third and fourth centuries, the evidence of 
this kind becomes too voluminous to be even de- 
scribed. More than a hundred authors remain, all 
whose works bear testimony to the same leading fact, 
that the books which we call the New Testament were 
then universally received throughout the Christian 
church. Quotations become so numerous, that in one 
single father, Athanasius, they exceed twelve hun- 
dred. And now we find, as we might expect, great 
attention given to the settlement of the canon. Spu- 
rious books had appeared. Councils are therefore 
held, and the most careful inquiries gone into, as to 
the genuineness of every book; and those only are 
admitted into the sacred collection, whose title is 
established by sufficient and concurrent testimony. 
Thus, the very inquiry through which we are now 
passing, was gone into at a period when the best 
possible evidence was attainable— when, in all pro- 
bability, the very autographs of the apostles them- 
selves were still extant; when the disciples of those 
who had seen and Conversed with them were still 
living; and when the churches which they had form- 
ed still existed in the very form and order in which 
they had themselves constituted them. 

It cannot be necessary to proceed any further with 
this chain of evidence, for everyone who is conversant 
with ancient writings must know that from the period 
of the council of Nice, a. d. 313, the whole literature 
of Europe bears continual and unvarying witness to 
the fact, that the Scriptures were universally received, 
and that those Scriptures were the same books which 
we now possess under that title. We will just allude, 
however, to the evidence of the adversaries of the 
Christian faith during these early periods. For in- 
stance, we find Celsus, a heathen philosopher, living 
about A. D. 175, arguing against Christianity with the 
greatest earnestness and acuteness; but he never at- 
tempts to deny either the existence or the genuineness 



THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES. 217 

of the books of the New Testament. On the contrary, 
he argues upon them as authentic works, and as ge- 
nerally received. So also does Porphyry, another 
heathen opponent, in the next century. He too, like 
Celsus, opposes the Christian faith, but he does not 
think of denying the authenticity of the Christian 
Scriptures. Julian, again, the emperor, argues against 
Christianity with all the zeal and bitterness of an apos- 
tate, but he deals with the gospels as the unquestion- 
able writings of the apostles and disciples of Christ, 
and as generally admitted and acknowledged to be 
such. 

This is but a slight sketch of the immense body of 
evidence which is extant, establishing the fact, that 
the books of the New Testament, were generally re- 
ceived, at the time of their production, and at every 
subsequent period, as the true and genuine works of 
the disciples and apostles of our Lord. But we pro- 
ceed 

Secondly, to remark on the further proof afforded 
by the circumstance of the vast number of ancient 
copies of these books which have come down to us. 

The standard works of ancient classics or historians 
have been generally preserved by a few remaining 
manuscripts. Of some we have ten or twelve; of 
others two or three, of many only one. Yet, when 
the internal character of the work is consistent with 
that of the author, and we have the collateral proof 
derived from the allusions and criticisms of contem- 
porary writers, we do not hesitate to adopt even a sin- 
gle manuscript as a valuable and genuine relic of an 
established author. 

Bat instead of ten or twelve, or even of fifty or an 
hundred, the ancient manuscripts of the New Testa- 
ment are numbered by thousands. Every ancient 
library throughout Christendom abounds with them. 
Nor are these manuscripts the production of any par- 
ticular age, but of all, even from the days of the apos- 
tles, down to the invention of printing. No possible 
proof can be imagined, more conclusive than this, of 



218 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

the fact, that in all these ages they were known, and 
in all of them highly prized and honoured. 

About five hundred different manuscripts of the 
New Testament are known to have been collated, 
and by these collations or comparisons another fact 
has been established, namely, that so carefully has 
the watchful eye of God's providence guarded the 
sacred text, that not one of all these hundreds of 
transcribers, in all ages and all countries of the world, 
has been permitted to introduce a single fundamental 
alteration, or even a doubt tending to weaken any 
one doctrine of the Christian faith. 

We will mention a few of these ancient copies, in 
order to show the extraordinary completeness of the 
proof arising from this branch of evidence. 

In the British Museum, among a multitude of an- 
cient copies, we find especially the Codex Alexan- 
drinus, or Alexandrian copy, which was presented 
in 1628, by the patriarch of Constantinople, to King 
Charles I. That patriarch stated, in a schedule there- 
unto annexed, that the traditional history of it de- 
scribed it as having been written by Thecla, a noble 
Egyptian lady, about 1300 years before that time, 
(A. D. 1628) or about the period of the council of 
Nice, in the beginning of the fourth century. 

In the Vatican at Rome we find the Codex Vati- 
canus, a manuscript which is assigned by antiquaries 
to the fourth century, and which contains not only 
the books of the New Testament, but also the Greek 
Version of the Septuagint. 

At Cambridge is deposited the Codex BezXy or copy 
of Beza, who presented it to that university in 1581. 
It contains the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apos- 
tles, in Greek, with the Latin version in use before 
the time of Jerome. This manuscript is assigned by 
Dr. Kipling to the second century, though other 
learned men contend for a date somewhat later. 

In the Royal Library at Paris is the Codex Ephroe- 
mi, a very ancient manuscript, containing the whole 
of the Greek Bible, though the earlier part is some- 



THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES. 219 

what defaced. The same library also possesses the 
Codex C lev or)iont anus ^ a manuscript of Paul's epis- 
tles in Greek, with the ancient Latin version. It 
was found in the monastery of Clermont, and is be- 
lieved to be of the date of the sixth or seventh cen- 
tury. 

We may add, that lately a splendid manuscript of 
the whole Bible, written by one of the chief scholars 
of the court of Charlemagne, was publicly exhibited 
in London. But of that period, and of later dates, 
manuscripts abound in every part of Europe. 

We might extend this series of proofs by referring 
to the various translations which are known to have 
been made, such as that of Jerome, into Latin, in 
A. D. 384 — that of Ulphilas, into Gothic, about the 
same period — that of Frumentius, into Ethiopic, also 
in the fourth century ; that of Miesrob, into Arme- 
nian, of the fifth century; with the .Anglo-Saxon, of 
the eighth, and the Sclavonian, of the ninth centuries, 
— but we must desist. The difficulty, in truth, that 
chiefly perplexes us here, is, how to select from the 
abundant and overwhelming proofs which press upon 
us on every side. But we must hasten onwards, and 
sliall advert next, very briefly, to the evidence of 
facts. 

What we mean by this expression, will be seen by 
simply referring to the standing evidence afforded by 
the Lord's Supper. This rite, or rather sacrament, 
is now, and has been for eighteen centuries, in uni- 
versal use among all Christian churches. Christians 
can satisfactorily explain its origin and intent, by 
referring to the account of its institution in the gos- 
pels and epistles. The narrative and the fact present 
a perfect agreement. But if we reject this account of 
the matter, then we find ourselves in this difficulty, 
that a practice exists among all the Christian nations 
of the earth, of the origin and meaning of which no 
satisfactory account can be given. For no other ac- 
count than that which the gospels furnish, has ever 
been produced by any of the opponents of Christian- 
ity. 



220 ESSAYS ON R0MANIS3I: 

A like evidence is furnished by the other sacra- 
ment, that of baptism. Perhaps it may be said that 
the admission of converts into the profession of a 
religion has generally taken place by some kind of 
baptism. But Christian baptism is a baptism into the 
names and worship of the Trinity — Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost. These ancient books, for the authentic- 
ity of which we are now contending, tell us that this 
rite was instituted by Christ himself in this very form, 
above eighteen hundred years ago. And we can 
prove without difficulty, by a great number of ancient 
writers, that such a rite has been observed, through- 
out all those centuries, by such as professed to believe 
and obey Christ. And to close the chain of evidence, 
we see with our own eyes the fact now in existence- 
around us; a fact of the origin of which we find no_ 
other rational account than that which the gospels 
supply. 

Again, Christians observe, with religious worship, 
the first day of the week, differing therein, not only 
from the heathen, but also from the Jews. Whence 
arises this distinction? The gospels explain it. It 
was on the first day of the week that the Saviour 
rose from the dead; and his disciples, from that time 
forward, hallowed that day as their Sabbath, and met 
together to break bread, to hear and read the Scrip- 
tures, and to exhort one another to faith, and to works 
of charity. 

We ought, perhaps, to have given a fourth class of 
proofs, namely, the corroborations of Scripture which 
abound in the works of the adversaries of Christian- 
ity : such as Tacitus and Pliny, two learned heathen 
writers, each of whom bears witness to the fact of 
the existence of the Christian religion and the wor- 
ship of Christ; the one, about the year a. d. 60, the 
other, about a. d. 170; and both of v/hom confirm 
the leading facts as to the d^ath of Christ and the 
character of his religion. In Josephus, too, a Jewish 
writer, decidedly hostile to Christianity, we have va- 
rious confirmations of all the leading facts of the gos- 
pel history; as we have also in the Mishna, a collec- 



THE TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURES. 221 

tion of Jewish traditions, published about a. d. 180, 
and ill the Talmud, compiled between a. d. 300 and 
500. And lastly, Mahomet himself, when founding 
a rival faith, expressly alludes to our Lord, and to 
John the Baptist, and speaks of Christ's miracles and 
his ascension as indubitable facts. But we almost 
fear overwhelming the question with such variety of 
proofs, and therefore shall only add, in closing this 
part of the subject, that there is not a fact in all an- 
cient history which is established by evidence of one 
hundredth part of the strength which combines to 
prove the genuineness and authenticity of the books 
of the New Testament. We might deny the exist- 
ence of Julius Caesar, or of Charlemagne, or even of 
Bonaparte himself, with much more show of ration- 
ality, than we can question the existence of the apos- 
tle Paul, or the fact of his having bequeathed to the 
church his invaluable epistles. 

The foregoing remarks, however, are confined to 
the question of the authenticity of the New Testa- 
ment; and we have still to speak of the Hebrew 
Scriptures. 

The one question, however, is included in the 
other. If we arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as 
to the New Testament, — that it is an authentic col- 
lection, written, unquestionably, by the authors whose 
names it bears, — and if its doctrines and averments 
be not only generally true, but in all cases infallibly 
so, being inspired by the Holy Spirit, — then we shall 
find the whole question as to the Old Testament 
already disposed of For, throughout the New Tes- 
tament are the Hebrew Scriptures constantly appealed 
to, their statements confirmed, or taken to be alto- 
gether indubitable, and their whole contents to be 
"given by inspiration of God," "for reproof, for cor- 
rection, and for instruction in righteousness." 

We may, therefore, next proceed to the question of 
the Divine Inspiration of the Scriptures, which, in- 
deed, is the point on which Dr. Wiseman predicted 
that we should find the greatest difficulty. 
15 



222 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM : 

But we must first remark, that another important 
point, — the credibility or truth of the books of the 
New Testament, is, in effect, involved in their au- 
thenticity or genuineness. I mean, that having ar- 
rived at a certainty that the books in question are not 
forgeries, but that they were actually written at the 
times, and by the persons whose names they bear, 
we shall find it impossible to avoid the next conclu- 
sion, — namely, that they were true records of things 
which really occurred. 

These books relate, not a series of ordinary or im- 
material occurrences only, but a course of the most 
extraordinary and supernatural events that ever took 
place on the earth. The authors either witnessed 
and knew the truth of the things which they relate, 
or they were a company of the greatest liars and de- 
ceivers that the world ever saw. 

That they were liars and impostors is in the last 
degree improbable, inasmuch as the system of morals 
which they preached, was the highest and purest ever 
inculcated upon man. It included perfect holiness, 
in thought, word, and deed, and especially forbade 
falsehood, under the penalty of eternal misery in hell. 

The declaration of the gospel of Christ, and the 
inculcation of this system of pure and holy living, 
offered to them no prospects of earthly gains, or hon- 
ours, or power; but the very contrary. They preached 
this faith and morality throughout whole lives of suf- 
fering, contempt, and hardship, and died, for the most 
part in cruel torments, without any one of them aban- 
doning his Christian profession. 

The supposition, therefore, that a set of men, of 
irreproachable lives, and preaching a system of the 
highest and purest morality, would persist, through a 
long series of years, in a tissue of the grossest false- 
hoods, and all this without any one human motive, 
without a hope of gaining any thing but scorn and 
suffering for their pains, is about the most extrava- 
gant specimen of irnprob ability that ever was ima- 
gined. And when we remember that daring a period 



THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES. 223 

of sixty or severity years, not one of tiieir number 
ever gave way — not one, amidst all their sufferings, 
ever threw off the disguise and acknowledged the 
whole to be an imposture, we must certainly admit 
that, on the hypothesis that the system was based in 
falsehood, the so long endurance of so great a number 
of persons, without any imaginable motive, in braving 
the severest persecution in its assertion, was the most 
stupendous moral miracle that the world ever beheld! 

But that the gospel history is a falsehood, is more 
than improbable: it is impossible. 

The general reception of the gospels, upon which 
we have already dwelt, as proving their genuineness 
and authenticity, proves this also. 

We have seen that these books, the gospels and 
epistles, were, from the very beginning of Christianity, 
received and preserved with honour, as sacred books. 
We have seen that in the age immediately succeeding 
the apostles, they were universally admitted as au- 
thorities, and were quoted as such by every Christian 
writer. This evidence grows and increases with the 
spread of Christianity, and we soon see the canon 
formed, catalogues of the sacred books authoritatively 
settled, and translations of the now completed ^q\y 
Testament commenced. 

Now all this establishes in the most irrefragable 
manner, the fact, that from the very beginning of 
Christianity, these books were admitted and recog- 
nized as true. 

These books, however, abound with narratives of 
the most extraordinary facts. The times and places 
of those events are always given, and multitudes of 
witnesses are appealed to, as knowing the truth of 
the facts so stated. Now that such narratives as 
these, if they were altogether false, should have been 
universally received as true, i^ nothing less than 
utterly impossible. 

True, it might possibly be asked. Did not Maho- 
met, in the Koran, pretend to have been the subject 
of divers miracles; and has it not been shown, in one 



224 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

of our former essays, that many miracles, generally 
received in the Romish church, were, in fact, no 
miracles at all? 

These remarks, however, only go to strengthen our 
position. Mahomet, asserting a divine mission, and 
therefore standing in great need of miracles to estab- 
lish his claim, yet never ventured to assert that he 
had publicly performed a single such act. True, he 
relates marvellous stories of being carried up to hea- 
ven on a mule, and the like, but such narratives as 
these prove nothing. Any impostor may narrate 
dreams, and visions, and spiritual revelations, con- 
cerning which not a single person besides himself 
knows any thing, and he is beyond the reach of con- 
tradiction. But to raise the dead, or to give sight to 
the incurably blind, is a more difficult task. The 
common sense of mankind will not submit to impo- 
sition in such matters as these; and accordingly Ma- 
homet never ventured even to profess his power to 
perform acts of this description. 

And just the same is the case with the Romish 
'church. Their miracles are generally done in a cor- 
ner; in some secluded nunnery, or private apartment, 
and they consist in restoring a lame hand, or giving 
strength to a weakened back, or some other dubious 
sort of proceeding, which fancy or medicine might 
have effected, without calling in supernatural aid. 

And here it is that the truth of the New Testament 
writers is manifested in such resplendent clearness. 
Take the case of Luke. He, like Matthew and Mark, 
records the remarkable fact, that during the hours of 
Jesus' agony on the cross, there was a supernatural 
gloom, the sun itself being darkened: and that at the 
moment of his death, there was an earthquake which 
rent the solid marble veil of the temple; and that 
these manifestations so struck the centurion and the 
multitude, that they openly expressed their conviction 
of the divine character of Christ! 

Luke then goes on to assert that shortly after our 
Lord's departure, a supernatural gift of tongues was 



THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES. 225 

conferred on the disciples, whereby they, being pre- 
viously ignorant Galileans, were instantaneously ena- 
bled to speak with fluency, the tongues of all the 
various foreigners who visited Jerusalem. He adds, 
that on the same occasion, a single sermon of Peter's 
produced so astonishing an effect on the people at 
Jerusalem, as to convert about three thousand souls! 

He next tells us that a certain man who had been 
lame from his mother's womb, and who was well 
known by all the frequenters of the temple, was, in 
that great resort, and at the hour when it was most 
thronged, publicly and instantaneously cured of his 
lameness, by a single word from Peter! 

Not to particularize each of the supernatural events 
recorded by him, we will merely add that he dis- 
tinctly asserts that at Joppa, Peter, restored to life a 
woman who had lain some hours dead, and that this 
" was known throughout all Joppa." He tells us 
that the same apostle, being confined with most ex- 
traordinary care in the prison at Jerusalem, was re- 
leased by an angel in so miraculous a manner, as to 
leave the keepers without any reasonable account to 
give, of his escape; another fact which must have 
been matter of perfect notoriety, if true. And of 
Paul he narrates many equally miraculous circum- 
stances. 

Now these narratives, be it remembered, were pub- 
lished, in the face of all, whether friends or opposers, 
in the very theatre of all these mighty deeds. If all 
these strange facts were mere inventions, what but 
shame and confusion of face could have been the lot 
of the author and his book? Let any one, in the 
present day, publish a story, that on a certain calami- 
tous day, all England was covered with a supernatu- 
ral darkness, not atmospheric merely, but arising from 
a visible loss of the sun's brightnesss. Let him add, 
that at the same moment the earth shook, and an im- 
mense chasm opened in the dome of St. Paul's cathe- 
dral. What would be said of such an historian? 
Would there be a single voice raised in his defence ? 



226 ESSAYS ON eomanism: 

Would it be possible that at the end of five or ten 
years, his narrative could be quoted as possessing the 
least authority? Most assuredly not. The book 
might be remembered, it is true; but it would only 
be mentioned by contemporaries either as the work 
of a madman, or a most audacious collection of false- 
hoods. 

But what was the fate of Luke's narrative? Do 
we find in any of the \vritings of the heathens and 
Jews of that day, any reproach directed against the 
evangelists or apostles, as publishing a series of the 
most monstrous fictions? Not a word — on the con- 
trary, every allusion that we find is a confirmation 
of the truth of these records. Josephus confirms 
many of the principal facts narrated in the gospels. 
So does Tacitus; — and the early Christian writers, 
such as Justin Martyr, in appealing to the emperors 
for justice, constantly refer to the archives of the em- 
pire, in which, as they assert, there was deposited 
under Pilate's own hand, a full confirmation of all 
the chief facts of their case. Tertullian boldly says, 
"Search your own public records; at the moment of 
Christ's death, the light departed from the sun, and 
the land was darkened at noon-day, which wonder is 
related in your own annals, and is preserved in your 
archives."* 

The main feature of the case, however, is, that 
these books, the gospels and other portions of the 
New Testaments, were universally received and 
honoured in the highest degree. They stated facts of 
the most extraordinary character, and the truth or 
falsehood of those statements must have been uni- 
versally known. To suppose that the whole body of 
the Christians, knowing them to be filled with the 
most notorious falsehoods, — asserting miracles which 
never took place, and gifts of tongues and wonderful 
conversions of which no one ever heard, would never- 
theless have exalted them to divine honours, would 
be beyond all credibility. To suppose, too, that, if 

* Apology, c. 21, 



THE TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURES. 227 

they were so filled with falsehoods, and were gener- 
ally known to be fabulous, none of the opposers of 
the gospel, such as Celsus, Porphyry, or Julian, should 
ever have poured contempt upon them; nay should 
even have admitted their statements to be generally 
correct, is equally out of all reasonable belief The 
fact is, that their general reception, and their un- 
impeached admission even by the enemies of the 
gospel, fully estabhsh the fact of their substantial 
Truth. 



228 



XII.— THE PROTESTANT RULE OF FAITH, 



THE DIVINE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



Our last essay closed the argument on the genu- 
ineness and authenticity of the Holy Scriptures, and 
we now come to speak of their Divine Inspiration. 

Such, at least, is the natural course; though, in- 
deed, if their genuineness and authenticity be con- 
ceded, their inspiration seems to follow as a neces- 
sary consequence. 

Not that we would assert, that if a narrative is 
shown to be authentic and generally credible, it is 
therefore to be admitted as of divine authority; but 
that, considering the things declared in the books in 
question, and the authority continually assumed there- 
in, we must come to one of two conclusions, — either 
that the apostles and evangelists were liars and 
impostors; or that they really wrote under the gui- 
dance and direction of the Holy Spirit. Now we 
have already come to the conclusion that it was m- 
possible that they could be liars and impostors, and 
yet be received as true witnesses by all the myriads 
of the early Christian church: consequently there is 
only the other conchision remaining to us. 

But it will certainly be advisable to state this ar- 
gument somewhat more fully and explicitly. We 
begin, then, by observing that the apostles them- 
selves lay claim, without hesitation, to divine autho- 
rity and direction. They do this both impliedly, in 
speaking of the Old Testament writers and comparing 
themselves with them; and e:r/>re5,y/y, by asserting, 
in plain terms, their own inspiration. 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 229 

T. Impliedly: The Old Testament is repeatedly 
spoken of, both by Christ, and by his apostles, as a 
divine revelation. It is said — " The Holy Ghost hy 
the mouth of David spake ;" — " How doth David in 
Spirit call him Lord f'^ — " Who hy the mouth of thy 
servant David hast said^^ — " Well spake the Holy 
Ghost by Esaias the prophet, soying,^^ ^■'C. — '•'Search- 
ing what or what m,anner of time the Spirit of 
Christ which was in them did signify, when it tes- 
tified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the 
glory that should follow.^ ^ " The prophecy came not 
in old time by the will of 'inan, but holy men of God 
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 
" Unto them, (the Jews) were committed the oracles 
of God." 

Now this divine character, which is constantly as- 
signed to the Old Testament Scriptures by the writers 
of the New Testament, is at other times equally 
claimed for both. This is seen by such expressions 
as, " Built upon the foundation of the xyostj^^s and 
PROPHETS." '^ That ye may be mindful of the words 
which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of 
the commandm,ent of us, the apostles of the Lord and 
Saviour.'^ All Scripture is given by inspiration 
of God, and is profitable for doctrine,^'' &c. " Even 
as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the 
wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you; in 
which are some things hard to be understood, which 
they that are unlearned and unstable, wrest, as they 
do also THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, uuto their own des- 
truction.^^ 

Thus we find the apostles distinctly speaking of 
the Inspiration of the books of the Old Testament, as 
a matter respecting which no one entertained any 
doubt, and then equalling their own writings with 
them. But, 

II. They expressly asserted their own Inspiration. 
And here we must unhesitatingly contradict Dr. .Wise- 
man, who, in one of his most intrepid assertions, says, 
" Nowhere have we the record of any of these writers 



230 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

having asserted his own inspiration."* Let the un- 
truth of this representation be seen in the following 
passages. 

The evangelists record the direct and explicit pro- 
mise of Christ, that the Holy Ghost should, after his 
ascension, descend upon them, and dwell in them, as 
an infallible guide. 

" When the Comforter is come, whom I will send 
unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of tr^uth, 
which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of 
me:^^ and " he will guide you into all truth: for he 
shall not speak of himself ; but whatsoever he shall 
hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you 
things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall 
receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.^' (John 
XY.2Q', xvi. 13, 14.) 

^^ I will pray the Father, and he shall give you 
another Comforter, that he may abide with you for 
ever, even the Spirit of truth, ivhom the world can- 
not receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth 
him; but ye know him, for he divelleth ivith youy 
and shall be in you. (John xiv. 16, 17.) 

" But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, 
whom the Father will send in my name, he shall 
teach you all things, and bring all things to your 
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you?^ 
(John xiv. 26.) 

" Jind when they shall bring you unto the syna- 
gogues, and unto magistrates and unto powers, take 
ye no thought how or what ye shall answer, or what 
ye shall say: for the Holy Ghost shall teach you in 
the same hour what ye ought to say.^^ (Luke xii. 
11,12.) 

" Take no thought how or what ye shall speak; 

for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye 

shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the 

Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.'' 

(Matt. x. 19, 20.) 

* Wiseman's Second Lecture, p. 43. 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 231 

And the apostles claim this character, for their de- 
liberate and official communications to the church. 
When James and the church at Jerusalem wrote to 
the churches of the Gentiles, by the hands of Barna- 
bas and Paul, they say, without any hesitation, " It 
seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay 
upon you no greater burden than these necessary 
things.'^ (Acts xv. 28.) 

Paul closes his epistle to the Romans in this man- 
ner: '^ Now to him that is of power to stahlish you 
according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus 
Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, 
which was kept secret since the world began; but now 
is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the pro- 
phets, according to the cotnmandment of the ever- 
lasting God, made known to all nations for the 
obedience of faith.''^ (Rom. xvi 25, 26.) 

In his first epistle to the Corinthians, he tells that 
church, ^^My speech and my preaching was 7iot with 
enticing words ofman^s wisdom,, but in demonstra- 
tion of the Spirit and of power: that your faith 
should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the 
power of God.^^ ''But as it is written. Eye hath 
not seen nor ear heard, neither have entered into the 
heart of man, the things which God hath prepared 
for them that love him. But God hath revealed 
them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit sear cheth 
all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what 
man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of 
man which is in him ? even so the things of God 
knoiveth no man but the Spirit of God. Now we 
have received, not the spirit of the worlds but the 
Spirit which is of God; that we might know the 
things that are freely given to us of God. Which 
things also we speak, not in the words which man^s 
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost 
teacheth; comparing spiritxial things with spirit- 
ual. But the natural man receiveth not the things 
of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto 
him, neither can he know them, because they are 
spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judg- 



232 



ON ROMANISM : 



eth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 
For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he 
may instruct him? But we have the mind of 
Christ:' (1 Cor. ii. 4,5, 9-16.) 

And subsequently, in the same epistle, he says, 
" If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spir- 
itual, let hvm acknowledge that the things that I 
write unto you are the commandments of the 
Lord.'' (1 Cor. xiv. 37.) 

To the Galatians he says, '■^ Irertify you, brethren, 
that the gospel which was preached of me is not af- 
ter man. For I neither reeived it of man, neither 
was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus 
Christ." (Gal.i. 11, 12.) 

And another apostle, John, the writer of one of 
the gospels, three epistles, and the Apocalypse, com- 
mences the latter book in these words, '^ The Revela- 
tion of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to 
shoiv unto his servants things which must shortly 
C07ne to pass; and he sent and signified it by his 
angel unto Ms servant John.'' " / ivas in the Spirit 
on the Lord's day, and heard behind m,e a great 
voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Mpha and 
Omega, the first and the last: and what thou seest 
write in a book." (Rev. i. 10, 11.) 

Dr. Wiseman's assertion, therefore, is most unjus- 
tifiable. The distinct claim of the writers both of 
the Old and New Testaments, is, that they were the 
mouth of God — that God spake by them — and that 
the books so given to the church were to be separated 
and kept sacred above all other writings, as being 

the holy scriptures — 'THE ORACLES OF GoD. 

But it may be said, that, admittmg that Dr. Wise- 
man went rather too far in this assertion, and conced- 
ing that the writers of these books did in fact claim 
for themselves the attribute of inspiration ; still this 
does not, surely, establish that claim. We are not to 
admit their inspiration merely because they assert it. 

Certainly; — not simply because they assert it; that 
would, indeed, be too much like the assumptions of 
the church of Rome. But let us consider the whole 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 233 

facts of the case, and try the claim thus set up by the 
most exact and rigid rules of reasoning that can be 
devised. 

Here are a number of persons, known by history 
to have been apostles of Christ, (for Mark's gospel 
was written under the direction of Peter, and Luke's 
under that of Paul;) and who are therefore partici- 
pants in whatever divine influence may have been 
shed on those apostles. These persons write various 
books, in which they distinctly assert, as we have 
just seen, the fact of their inspiration. They present 
themselves, in short, as messengers from God, speak- 
ing and writing under the direct guidance of the Holy 
Spirit. This claim, as we have abundant proof, was 
universally admitted by the Christians of that day. 
The books in question were received into all the 
churches, as the undoubted oracles of God. It was 
in this light that they were regarded by all the chief 
guides of the early church. Clement, who was bishop 
of Rome during the lives of some of the apostles, 
says, " Look into the Holy Scriptures, which are the 
true words of the Holy Ghost. Take the epistle of 
the blessed Paul, the apostle, into your hand; verily 
he did by the Spirit admonish you." Justin Mar- 
tyr sd^ys, *Hhe gospels were written by men full of 
the Holy Ghost." Irenaeus says, "the Scriptures 
were dictated by the Spirit of God, and therefore it is 
wickedness to contradict them, and sacrilege to alter 
them." "The gospel," he adds, "was first preached, 
and afterwards by the will of God committed to writ- 
ing, that it might be for time to come the foundation 
of our faith." This was the universal belief of the 
early churches, and it was a discerning and discrimi- 
nating belief. They did not blindly accept as Scrip- 
tures whatever might be oflered. Various forgeries 
and imitations of the apostolic writings were put 
forth, but all such were rejected. Those which were 
admitted to this high rank were only such books as 
were satisfactorily known to have been of apostolical 
origin. 

But, — it may be asked, — are we sure that in thus 



234 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM. 

accepting the books now called the New Testament, 
the early Christians acted reasonably and upon good 
grounds: and are their reasons accessible to us, or 
must we receive these books as inspired, merely be- 
cause the first Christian churches received them? 

We reply, — that every kind of evidence is offered to 
us. Our belief does not rest upon one or two facts 
only; but all possible circumstances which could be 
imagined, as tending to aid and strengthen our belief, 
are offered to our mind. It is much to find that the 
sacred books are handed down to us with the unani- 
mous concurrence of all Christian churches of all ages 
and countries, as 'Hhe true saymgs of God.^^ But 
we have even more than their acceptance to guide 
us; we have the grounds and reasons of that accept- 
ance, as open and as clear as they were to the early 
Christians themselves. 

Reflect now, for a moment, what evidence we 
should require, were a preacher or messenger to come 
to us, declaring that he had a commission from on 
high — a direct communication from God to ourselves 
and others. Of course we should demand some proof 
of the reality of his mission. We should say to him, 
"It is easy for any one — whether he has deceived 
himself or means to deceive us — to say that he is 
clothed with divine authority, and bears a divine 
commission; but the test which we must apply to you 
is. What can you do? A messenger from on high 
will have power from on high, whereby men may 
know him to be indeed sent of Him, who alone can 
bestow such power." 

Now the two chief credentials which it has pleased 
God to place in the hands of his messengers to man, 
are, Miracles and Prophecy; the power of suspend- 
ing the laws of nature; and the power of foretelling 
future events. Whoever can satisfactorily show him- 
self possessed of these two signs of apostleship, or of 
either of them, has an unquestionable claim upon the 
attention of mankind. These two signs or creden- 
tials are distinctly pointed out in Scripture as evi- 
dencing the presence of divine power. The fore- 



THE INSPIRATION OP THE SCRIPTURES. 235 

knowledge of future events is distinctly claimed in the 
Old Testament as a divine prerogative: '^I am the 
first and I am the last; and beside me there is no 
God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it^ 
and set it in order for me, since I appointed the an- 
cient people? and the things which are coming, and 
shall come, let them show unto them.^^ '•^Thus 
saith the Lord, ask me of the things to come, con- 
cerning my sons:^^ ''who hath declared this from 
ancient times? who hath told it from that time? 
have not I, the Lord? and there is no God beside 
me.'' — (Isaiah xliv. 6, 7; xlv. 11, 21.) 

The other credential of divine authority was natu- 
rally called for by the Jews, who asked, ''What sign 
showest thou, that we may see and believe thee? what 
dost thou work?^' — (John vi. 30.) And Christ himself 
recognized the justice of this demand, when he said, 
" The works that I do, they bear witness of me.'' And, 
when appealed to, not in infidel scorn, but in the spi- 
rit of sincere inquiry, he produced these credentials to 
the inquirer. It is said, — 

''Jind John, calling two of his disciples, sent them 
to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should co7ne? or 
do we look for another?" ''And in the same hour, 
Jesus cured many of their infirmities and plagues, 
and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind 
he gave sight. And said unto them. Go your way 
and tell John what things ye have seen and heard." 
(Luke vii. 19, 21, 23.) 

Thus our Lord distinctly showed that he considered 
it ^rfectly unnecessary to add a single word in con- 
firmation of a proof so irrefragable of divine authori- 
ty. Nicodemus, also, plainly admitted both the fact 
and the inference, when he said, " We know that 
thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can 
do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with 
him" — (John iii. 2.) 

Nor can any thing be more entirely consistent with 
right reason, than this view of the case. The laws 
of nature, as they are called, are nothing more than 
the settled regulations which God has himself im- 



236 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM; 



posed upon the visible creation. These regulations 
he allows none of the creatures of his hand to trans- 
gress or change without his direct authority. Con- 
sequently, when any man is able, openly, and in the 
face of day, to divide the sea, and make a way through 
the great deep — to cause the shadow on the sun-dial to 
go back a considerable portion of the day — to open the 
eyes of one born blind, or to restore life to one from 
whom the spirit has departed — it at once becomes a 
matter admitting of no rational doubt, that he is 
clothed with divine power and authority; — that he is 
a special ambassador from God himself. 

And equally clear is the other point. A view of 
the future is, beyond all question, open to none but 
God himself. Not the highest archangel — not Satan 
himself can fathom the mind and will of God as to 
future events: and upon that mind and will all future 
events turn. The man, therefore, who is able to fore- 
tell with truth the events of a future time, gives the 
clearest possible proof that he may say with David, 
" The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word 
was i?i my tongue,^' — (2 Sam. xxiii. 2.) 

Now each of these credentials was possessed in the 
greatest fulness and clearness, both by Christ himself 
and by his apostles. The miracles wrought and pro- 
phecies uttered by our Lord himself we need not now 
consider, as the point we are discuvssing is rather that 
of the divine mission of his apostles than of his own. 
But the fact is equally beyond dispute, that those 
sent out by Christ, to proclaim his gospel, and from 
whose hands we have received the New Testament, 
did possess, as certainly, if not to the same extent, 
these two supernatural powers, of working miracles, 
and of foretelling future events, as did Christ himself. 

The mission of the apostles may be said to have 
commenced on the Mount of Ascension, when their 
final instructions were given to them, in terms differ- 
ing greatly from any previous message. These in- 
structions ran thus: " Go ye into all the world, 
and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 
xvi. 15.) And the evangelist adds, that " they went 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 237 

forth and preached every where; the Lord working 
toith them, and confirming the word with signs 

FOLLOWING." (v. 20.) 

Now the details of this their preaching, and of 
these accompanying, ^' signs, ''^ we find in the Acts of 
the Apostles. We there learn that, immediately after 
our Lord's ascension, the disciples assembled at Jeru- 
salem, " to wait for the promise of the Father/^ 
" the Holy Ghost.'' This baptism of the Holy Ghost 
was given to them ten days after their Lord's ascen- 
sion, and it was accompanied with signs of an extra- 
ordinary character. The power of understanding 
and speaking all languages was suddenly bestowed 
on these poor and illiterate men, so that " men out of 
every nation under heaven'' heard them speak, 
^^ every man in his own tongue wherein he was 
born." And immediately followed another wonder, 
of no less magnitude. Three thousand men, who 
had themselves " with wicked hands crucified and 
slain" the Lord Jesus were '' pricked to the heart" 
by a single sermon from the lips of Peter, and at once 
joined the despised and persecuted church. 

Immediately after this commencement, Peter and 
John, going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, 
were enabled in the name of Jesus, to restore to 
strength and soundness, a man who had been " lame 
from his mother'' s womb." This deed was done in 
the presence of multitudes, and of its entirely super- 
natural character there could be no doubt. 

Closely following this upon the mere rebuke of 
Peter, two persons, Ananias and Sapphira, fell down 
dead, as a punishment for their hypocrisy and false 
profession; and it is added, in the very same chap- 
ter, " And by the hands of the apostles were many 
signs and wonders wrought among the people; inso- 
much that they brought forth the sick into the 
streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at 
the least the shadow of Peter passing by might over- 
shadow some of them. There came also a multi- 
tude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, 
bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with 

16 



238 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

unclean sphHts: and they were healed every oneJ*^ 
(Acts V. 12—16.) 

In the next chapter we are told that " Stephen full 
of faith and power ^ did great wonders and miracles 
among the people.^^ (Acts vi. 8.) 

In the viiiM, that " Philip went down to the city of 
Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the 
people ivith one accord gave heed unto those things 
which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the mira- 
cles which he did. For unclean spirits, crying with 
loud voice, came out of maiiy that were possessed 
with them; and many taken with palsies, and that 
were lame, were healed. Jind there was great joy in 
that city.^^ (Acts viii. 5 — 8.) 

In the ixth, the raising of Dorcas to life by the 
hands of Peter, after she had been sometime dead, is 
narrated. 

In the xiii/A, we observe the infliction of blindness 
on Elymas the sorcerer, at the word of Paul, in 
punishment for his opposition to the truth. 

In the xivth, a man at Lystra, ^'•impotent in his 
feet, being a cripple from his mother^ s womb, who 
never had walked: the same heard Paul speak: who 
stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had 
faith to be healed, said with a loud voice. Stand up- 
right on thy feet. Jind he leaped and walked. And 
when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted 
up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, 
The gods are come down to us in the likeness of 
men.^^ (Acts xiv. 8.) 

In the xiKth, we read that ^'God wrought special 
miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his 
body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or 
aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and 
the evil spirits went out of thcm.^^ (Acts xix. 11, 
12.) 

Thus, in addition to the authority derived from 
being sent by one who was known to all men as a 
doer of *' mighty works," (Matt. xiv. 2.) the apostles 
were themselves fully furnished with this unques- 
tionable credential of heaven. Nor was the evi- 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 239 

dence of Prophecy wanting, though the full dev&l- 
opement of its power and value, as a proof of inspi- 
ration, can only be seen in the lapse of ages, while 
that of Miracles is instant and perfect on the spot. 

The gift of foretelling future events was occasion- 
ally exhibited by the apostles, in cases wherein the 
speedy accomplishment of the prediction rendered 
this proof of their divine authority as available as 
that of a miracle itself. Such instances are seen in 
Acts xi. 27 — 30, and xxvii. 22. But the real value 
and weight of this branch of evidence can only be 
properly appreciated by looking at the Bible as a 
whole, as mdeed it is treated by Peter and Paul; (2 
Peter iii. 16; 2 Tim. iii. 16.) and taking in, at one 
view, the long series of prophecies therein contained 
nearly the whole of which have already been fulfil- 
led, and the remainder are now in course of ful- 
filment. 

We find, for instance, the grand prediction, em- 
bracing the whole of the nations of the earth, that 
"God should enlarge Japhet,'^ and that he should 
" dwell in the tents of Shem;^' and that the descend- 
ants of Ham should be the "servants of servants," 
(Genesis ix^25, 27.) exactly fulfilled. We find the 
prediction to Ishmael, that he should become "' a^ 
great nation,^' and that his hand should be against 
"every man, and every man's hand against him," 
(Gen. xvi. 12; xvii. 20.) also exactly fulfilled. 

Esau, or Edom, according to several predictions,^ 
(Jer. xlix. 17. Ezek. xxv. 12. Joel iii. 19. Amos i.. 
11. Obad. X. 18.) we find "cut off for ever," and 
made a "perpetual desolation." Nineveh has been 
so completely destroyed, that the place thereof can- 
not be known. (Nahum i. 3.) Babylon has been 
" swept with the besom of destruction," and is made 
"a desolation for ever, a possession for the bittern,, 
and pools of Avater." (Isaiah xiii. xiv.) Tyre has 
become "like the top of a rock, a place for fishers to 
spread their nets upon;" (Ezek. xxvi. 4, 5.) while 
Egypt is " a base kingdom, the basest of kingdoms," 
no more able "to exalt itself above the nations." 



240 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM : 

(Ezek. xxix. 14, 15.) We then open another im- 
mense prophecy, whose publication many centuries 
before the event is as certain as any thing can be, that 
after the three universal empires, of Assyria, Persia, 
and Greece, there should arise a fourth, more power- 
ful and more terrible than either; that that empire 
should be broken up into ten kingdoms; and that 
another power, diverse from the rest, should arise 
among them, and should subdue and absorb three of 
these kingdoms; all of which, without entering upon 
the question of the papacy, we have seen literally ac- 
complished in the history of the Roman empire. 
Next we turn to the predictions concerning the Jews; 
and here we find our Lord's prophecy, that the city 
and temple at Jerusalem should be so entirely de- 
stroyed, that " there should not be left one stone upon 
another," that " the people should fall by the edge of 
the sword, and be carried away captive into all na- 
tions;" and that "Jerusalem should be trodden down 
of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be ful- 
filled," (Luke xxi.) accomplished to the very letter. 
We find also divers other remarkable predictions, 
many of them of a thousand years back, such as that 
"the sceptre shoulc^ depart from Judah, and a law- 
giver from between his feet," when Shiloh, or Mes- 
siah came; (Gen. xlix. 10.) that "the people should 
dwell alone, and not be reckoned among the nations," 
(Numb, xxiii. 9,) that, in their apostasy, the Lord 
should "scatter them among all people, from the one 
end of the earth even unto the other," and that 
"among these nations should they find no ease, 
neither should the soles of their feet find rest;" that 
they should be" sifted among all nations, like as corn 
is sifted in a sieve, yet should not a grain fall to the 
earth," (Amos ix. 9.) and that they should " abide 
many days without a king, and without a prince, and 
without a sacrifice;" (Hosea iii. 5.) and every word 
of these various and minute predictions we have seen 
exactly accomplished. Lastly, we come fo the latest 
writers in the sacred canon, and it is impossible to 
ascribe to any thing else than the spirit of prophecy. 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 241 

the portraiture drawn by Paul of "the Man of Sin," 
that should be revealed; who should "exalt himself 
above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so 
that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing 
himself that he is God;" whose immediate appearance 
was only prevented by the existence of the Roman 
Imperial power, but that he should be "revealed" 
when that power should be "taken out of the way," 
and that among his characteristics should be those of 
"forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain 
from meats." (2 Thess. ii. 4. 1 Tim. iv. 3.) Or what 
but the same spirit of prophecy could have enabled 
John to pourtray as he does, by the common consent 
of all commentators, the then unknown powers of the 
Saracens and the Turks, who were not to arise, till 
after the lapse of centuries? (Rev. ix. 1 — 21.) Thus 
we see that these two great signs or credentials of 
their mission were abundantly possessed by the wri- 
ters of the sacred Scriptures, and we must never forget, 
that they have not even been claimed by the preachers 
or priests of any other faith. 

We are aware that we shall be asked whether 
neither the heathen priests nor he who called himself 
" the prophet of God," Mahomet, ever laid claim to 
these credentials? What, it will be demanded, were 
the oracles of the ancient lieathen? — and on what was 
Mahomet's claim to the prophetic character founded? 

The ancient oracles were either the devices of 
crafty priests, or the working of evil spirits, or both. 
But there is nothing recorded of them which is not 
perfectly conceivable of a cunniog and far-sighted 
human being. For instance, when Croesus consulted 
the Delphic oracle, touching his intention of attacking 
the Persians, he obtained this reply, — " Croesus, cross- 
ing the Halys, shall destroy a great empire." Now 
this answer encouraged him to proceed; yet on his 
overthrow, and the destruction of his own empire, 
the oracle was made to appear to have spoken exact- 
ly the truth. And after all, what was the reply, but 
an artful, double meaning, contrived so as to suit 
either of the two most probable results ? 



242 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

As to the other sign, that of miracles, we may 
search in vain the whole annals of Paganism and Ma- 
hometanism, for a single fact, to parallel the case of 
the lame man healed in the temple, as recorded in 
Acts iii. 6, 7. Mahomet, indeed, expressly disclaims 
all pretensions of this kind in the Koran. He thus 
speaks: They say, unless a sign be sent down unto 
him from his Lord, ice will not believe: Answer, 
signs are in the power of God alone, and I am no 
more than a public preacher. No, the Scriptures 
abound in the most wonderful predictions, most of 
which are already fulfilled before our eyes; and they 
contain the records of hundreds of miracles, each of 
which would have stamped the word accompanying 
it as a revelation from heaven; and besides these 
Scriptures there is no other book, no other religion 
in the world, which can show either prophecy or 
miracle. 

The serious, but undecided inquirer, may, however, 
have two more questions to put: the first is. Can I be 
sure that these predictions were pronounced and re- 
corded before the events, and not afterwards? The 
second : Granting that a miracle, if I saw it performed 
in my own presence, must compel my submission to 
him who worked it, as a divine messenger, still, am 
I equally bound to bend to this credential, when I 
only hear the report of it, after a lapse of centuries? 

On the first point nothing can possibly be better es- 
tablished than the fact, that all the books which we 
now call the Old Testament, were in existence, were 
preserved as holy oracles by the Jews, and were trans- 
lated from Hebrew into Greek, in Egypt, at least two 
hundred years before Christ. The inquirer, in fact, 
may as well begin to doubt the existence of Julius 
Caesar, or of Charlemagne, or of the Duke of Marl- 
borough, as to question that a man named Moses 
lived about fifteen hundred years before Christ, and 
wrote the books which are ascribed to him. Here, 
therefore, not to go into the like particulars as to 
David, Isaiah, or others, we have a great number of 
the chief prophecies, especially those concerning 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 243 

Christ, the dispersion of the Jews, and the fate of 
many other nations, unquestionably in existence 
many centuries before the event. And equally cer- 
tain is it, that the writings of Paul and John, which 
foretel the rise of the Papacy, the ravages of the Sa- 
racens and Turks, and other important events, were 
current in the church several centuries before the ful- 
filment of those predictions. 

And as to the second question, we would observe, 
that a certain degree and amount of testimony is 
fully equal to the evidence of our own senses; and 
that when that testimony is made matter of public 
record, its force and value loses nothing by time. 
For instance, we never saw Bonaparte, nor did we 
ever speak with any one who had seen him. And 
yet, from the vast amount of evidence extant, we 
arrive at such a conviction of the fact, that we could 
as soon doubt our own existence, as we could ques- 
tion the fact that Bonaparte lived and reigned in 
France, from 1803 to 1814 — 15. 

Now this general testimony to the fact will estab- 
lish it just as fully to the minds of the men of the 
next century, though none of them can have any 
personal knowledge of its truth. 

And, in like manner, the abundant written testi- 
monies to the miracles wrought by the apostles; the 
admission of their enemies, the general belief of the 
facts by the whole Christian church of that day, and 
the entire absence of a single word in denial of the 
truth of these statements, all go to establish the whole 
narrative on such a basis, that the question of one 
century, or ten, or twenty, is perfectly immaterial to 
the whole question. 

What, then, is the sum of the whole matter? It is 
this: Mankind stands in need of a revelation from 
heaven. This every man's conscience witnesseth. 
A dark and gloomy eternity rises before his view, on 
which nothing but divine illumination can shed the 
least ray of light. 

There is but one document which so much as pre- 
tends to this character. Search throughout the world, 



244 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



whether Mahometan or heathen, there is not even a 
vestige of any writing which professes to be the 
Word of God, except the book whose character we 
are now considering. 

That book is an ancient collection of writings: of 
this there can be no doubt, since scarcely an heathen 
author exists, who does not in some way or other 
attest its antiquity, or confirm its statements. 

These writings have ever been received diUdi valued, 
by those who possessed them, as the oracles of God. 
And their existence and their pretensions, having 
been at all times known, no refutation of those pre- 
tensions has ever been furnished by those, who, if 
they knew their falsehood, assuredly would have 
made it known to others. 

These writings uniformly assert the divine inspira- 
tion of their authors. They bear mutual witness to 
each other, and they appeal also to miraculous proofs 
of divine authority; — which appeal, though made in 
the face of multitudes of opposers, has never yet 
been met. They also appeal to a second evidence, — 
that of prophecy, with which it is undeniable that 
their pages are filled, and which of itself furnishes a 
proof which is altogether irrefragable. 

Lastly, they are consistent with themselves, and 
with the character they claim. They present to us 
views of God, so sublime and so befitting, that none 
but God himself could have afforded them. They 
offer us also a code of morals altogether casting shame 
upon the highest efforts of human moralists and phi- 
losophers, and the adoption of which by mankind 
at large would of itself establish heaven upon the 
earth, — a code, too, which could no more have been 
invented or promulgated by a set of impostors and 
cheats, than devout aspirations could arise from a 
fallen spirit. And, finally, they depict man himself 
as he really is, a task which the experience of six 
thousand years has abundantly shown to be wholly 
beyond man's own power. They show him his true 
character and condition; explain his malady; point 
out the only remedy, and then place within his reach 



THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 245 

the means of obtaining the best of all evidence, that 
of his own heart, and soul, and affections. They 
elevate man, wherever they are received and obeyed, 
to the highest degree of virtue and happiness which 
his nature will admit; while their rejection involves 
a correlative degree of misery and debasement. 

Every proof, therefore, and every evidence, short 
of a visible or audible miracle, worked for every in- 
dividual man, is already afforded to us. More dis- 
tinct or positive assurance, except God should him- 
self speak from heaven to each sinner personally, we 
could not have. If God has spoken to man, assuredly 
he has spoken to some purpose. Knowing the wants 
of the human race, he would not stoop from heaven 
to address them, without applying to those wants ex- 
actly the remedy that was most suitable. 

Take, then, this book to your own closet, remem- 
bering that every possible external proof of its divine 
origin has been already afforded; and see if you do 
not find all these proofs abundantly reinforced, by 
the admirable adaptation of its contents to your own 
personal wants and desires. No one ever entered 
upon a candid examination of the Scriptures, in this 
point of view, and with prayer for the Holy Spirit's 
guidance, without arriving at a sure conviction, and 
that upon the best grounds, of their Divine Inspira- 
tion. 



246 



XIIL— THE TWO RULES OF FAITH COMPARED. 



We have now considered, each in its turn, the Romish 
and the Protestant rules of faith. We have endeav- 
oured to show, that an opposition to the reception of 
the Scriptures as the sole rule, leads to infidelity; — 
and that the difficulties suggested by Dr. Wiseman 
are not insuperable. But we are now to propose a 
third objection, — to wit, that the Romish principle, 
^' that God has appointed His church the infallible 
and unfailing depository of all truth,''* is beset with 
not only the same, but ten times greater difficulties 
than those which have been pointed out in the Pro- 
testant rule. 

This evidently involves a comparison of the two 
rules of faith; and to conduct this impartially it will 
be necessary to pass again in review all Dr. Wiseman^s 
objections to the use of Holy Scripture as a rule. 

But it may be as well to ask, at starting, what is 
the particular point concerning which the two systems 
are to be especially compared? It is that oi inappli- 
cability. Dr. Wiseman asserts that the Protestant 
rule is "fraught with so many difficulties, as absolute- 
ly to render it in practice inapplicable, and void of 
fruit." And we shall now endeavor to show that 
this objection attaches in a much greater degree to 
the Romish rule, than to the Protestant, But this 
we must do by passing in review all the alleged " dif- 
ficulties/' arrayed by Dr. Wiseman against the use of 

* Wiseman's First Lecture, p. 20. 



THE TWO RULES COMPARED. 



247 



Scripture, and inquiring whether they do not apply 
far more decidedly to the rule and standard which he 
himself proposes. 

Let us, then, to do full justice to Dr. Wiseman, re- 
capitulate the ^'difficulties" which he brings forward, 
and as far as possible in his own words. 

Dr. Wiseman contends that the books of Scripture 
cannot have been intended to constitute the rule of 
faith, for the following reasons: — 

1. That the adoption of such a rule implies a ne- 
cessity, on the part of every individual receiving it, 
of a tedious investigation into the genuineness and 
authenticity of those books: 

2. Also, of a further inquiry, as to whether no 
other books of equal authority have been lost or ex- 
cluded, so as to leave the rule incomplete: 

3. Also, whether it be beyond doubt, that these 
books were not only the real productions of their 
alleged authors, but were actually given by divine 
inspiration. 

And, considering that these three points include a 
vast field of inquiry and laborious investigation, the 
doctor asks, " Can a rule, in the approach to which 
you must pass through slich a labyrinth of difficulties, 
be that which God has given us as a guide to the 
poorest, the most illiterate, and the simplest of his 
creatures? 

4. But the supposition that " God gave his holy 
word to be the only rule of faith to all men," leads to 
another difficulty; it must "be translated into every 
language, that all men may have access to it." Now, 
says Dr. Wiseman, "are you aware of the difficulty 
of undertaking a translation of it? Whenever the 
attempt has been made in modern times; in the first 
instance it has generally failed, and even after many 
repeated attempts, it has proved unsatisfactory." 
"And we cannot suppose that God would stake the 
whole usefulness and value of his rule upon the pri- 
vate or particular abilities of man." 

5. Again, consider the paucity of copies of the 
Bible, until modern times. " God could not mean, 



248 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

that for fourteen hundred years man was to be with- 
out a guide; and that mankind should have to wait 
until human genius had given efficacy to it by its 
discoveries and inventions. Such cannot be the quali- 
ties or conditions of the rule." 

6. Lastly: "To be the rule of faith, it cannot be 
sufficient that men should possess and read it, but 
they must surely be able to comprehend it. In fact, 
who ever heard of the propriety and wisdom of 
placing in men's hands a code, or rule, which it was 
impossible for the greater portion of them to compre- 
hend?" 

" Such, then," says the doctor, " are the difficulties 
regarding the application of this rule: a difficulty of 
procuring and preserving the proper sense of the ori- 
ginal by correct translations; a difficulty of bringing 
these translations within the reach of all; a difficulty, 
not to say an impossibility, of enabling all to under- 
stand it."* 

These being the several points, upon which Dr. 
Wiseman rests his conclusion, that the Scriptures 
were not intended as a sole or sufficient rule of faith, 
we shall now proceed to show, that the same or still 
greater difficulties attend the adoption of the Romish 
rule. 

But let us first understand, distinctly, what we are 
to bring into comparison with the Scriptures, as fur- 
nishing mankind with a safer and more unerring 
guide than God's own revealed word. 

This may be described in Dr. Wiseman's words, as 
"the church of Christ, which has been appointed by 
God to take charge of, and keep safe, those doctrines, 
committed to her from the beginning, to be taught, at 
all times, to all nations."! 

With this definition of the Romish rule, let us pro- 
ceed at once to consider Dr. Wiseman's first objection, 
and to inquire whether his own rule is free from the 
difficulties which he professes to find in the use of the 
Holy Scriptures. 

* Wiseman's Second Lecture,p. 48. 
+ Wiseman's Third Lecture, p. 61. 



THE TWO RULES COMPARED. 249 

His first objection is, that, " if all men, even the 
most illiterate, have a right to study the word of God 
— if it be not only the right, but the duty of even the 
most ignorant to study that word, and thence to 
draw his belief: — it is likewise his duty to satisfy 
himself that it is the word of God." And "in the first 
place, before any one can even commence the exami- 
nation of that rule, which the church proposes to him, 
he must have satisfied himself that all the books and 
writings which are collected together in that volume, 
are really the genuine works of those whose names 
they bear."* 

Now let us keep this practical difficulty fixedly in 
view, and inquire whether the rule which Dr. Wise- 
man proposes as " a more excellent way," is not far, 
very far, more difficult of application than that to 
which he himself objects. 

The doctor is dealing with the case of one who is in 
neutral circumstances; that is, of one who has not yet 
finally received the Scriptures, as the word of God. 
And he argues that if, instead of first submitting him- 
self to the church, and then receiving the Scriptures 
on her authority, the inquirer begins by endeavouring 
to satisfy himself as to the divine authority of the sa- 
cred writings, he will find the difficulties so great, and 
the investigations so tedious, as to make it manifest 
that this was not the course intended by God; but 
that the church is to be first submitted to as our 
guide, and then the Scriptures received on her guar- 
antee and recommendation. 

Now let us try this course for a few moments, and 
see if we have really changed for the better. 

The very instant the inquirer sets out, he will find 
that he has not improved, but considerably deteriorated 
his prospects of success. 

Protestantism proposed to him the Bible as his 
rule and guide. Now at least there was a remark- 
able concurrence of testimony in behalf of this book. 
There is but one Bible in the world, and in every 

* Wiseman's Second Lecture, p. 32. 



250 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

corner of the earth this one book is known, and is ac- 
cepted by all sorts or societies of Christians, as God's 
own revealed word. 

All the visible churches, of every description, concur 
in this one great point. The Romish church, whether 
in Italy, in Belgium, in Ireland, in Mexico, or in 
Malabar, declares this book to be the word of God. 
The Greek churches, from St. Petersburg to Athens, 
from Armenia to Alexandria, all unite in the same 
testimony. The ancient Syrian churches, the Ma- 
ronites, and the Waldenses, alike agree with all the 
daughters of the Reformation; and wherever a pro- 
fessing Christian is to be found, no matter of what 
nation, or of what communion, — there we have a 
witness to the fact, that all Christendom accepts the 
holy Scriptures as the revealed word of God. 

Bat mark how wofully the inquirer has darkened 
his prospect, when he turns away from this proposed 
rule, on the score of the supposed difficulty of ascer- 
taining its genuinness, and takes up, instead, the pre- 
tensions of either the Romish, or any other visible 
church. 

We presented to him a Bible; — which he could see, 
and lay hold upon, and read, and consider. Here 
was something tangible, and something as to the di- 
vine character of which he had the united testimony 
of all Christians throughout all ages, and in all places. 
Now what does the Romanist oifer to him, as a pre- 
ferable guide? Let Dr. Wiseman himself state it: 
"Our rule,'^ he says, "is the church of Christ, which 
has been appointed of God to take charge of, and 
keep safe, the doctrines committed to her from the 
beginning." 

Here we see at once how materially the inquirer's 
position is changed for the worse. The rule or guide 
which Protestantism proposed to him, was one which 
he could himself consult, peruse, consider; and in the 
truth of which all Christendom, of all churches, and 
all nations, were agreed. Instead of which rule he 
now has one offered him which is an impalpable 
shadow; a mere ideal thing; which he can neither 



THE TWO RULES COMPARED. 251 

see, nor hear, nor in any practical way consult; and 
respecting the truth and authority of which, Christ- 
endom is greatly divided. 

We have said that the Romish rule is one which 
can neither be seen, nor heard, nor consulted . What 
we mean is this,: The Bible is here, and we may at 
once sit down and study it; but where is " the 
church,^' which Dr. Wiseman recommends as a more 
safe and eligible guide? Where can we see or hear 
this church; and in what mode or by what channel 
does she speak? In a word when the opponent tells 
us of a Rule, — a Guide: — we ask him to put us in 
possession of it, and to give us a practical example of 
its use and of its utility? What is it, that, instead of 
this bible, the church of Rome offers us as a guide to 
our inquiries ? 

But here the Romanist will confess that there is a 
little difficulty, — if we require a document, a book, — 
to serve as substitute for the Bible. The description 
given by Dr. Milner of the Romish rule will explain 
this'difficnlty. He says, ^' The Catholic rule of faith 
is Scripture and Tradition; and these propounded 
and explained by the Catholic church/' Now Scrip- 
ture is indeed accessible, but that taken alone the 
Romanist holds to be an imperfect rule, and its use in 
this way to be dangerous. And tradition has never 
been reduced to a system, — a second Bible; nor can 
he put it into our hands, or direct us to any place in 
which we can find it. 

But Dr. Milner adds, "as propounded and ex- 
plained by the Catholic church. '^ Now where has 
the church propounded this rule? By the doctor's 
language we might almost suppose, that the church 
had added tradition to Scripture by way of a com- 
mentary or appendix, and that thus a perfect rule was 
obtained. 

There is, however, no such work. The church has 
never put forth any commentary; nor any system or 
code of faith and morals, on infallible authority; 
although many individuals, upon their own private 



252 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

responsibility, and without pretending to infallibility, 
have written such treatises. 

Of course it is useless to refer to mere human pro- 
ductions, as we are now seeking for something better 
than what is admitted to be the word of God. The 
question, then, remains, as the church has not spoken, 
authoritatively, by a written work, where and how 
we can "hear the church;'^ — as it is said we must 
hear her, to be in the safe road to salvation. 

The Romish controversialist, however, feels a de- 
gree of difficulty here. Some, indeed, have argued, 
that " He who established his church, has appointed 
her pastors to rule, govern, and teach in his name; 
and has promised that he will watch over these his 
ministers, and be ever with them, and that his Spirit 
shall lead them into all truth. He has therefore com- 
manded all to follow their guidance and teaching, 
without distinction of persons, and without limitation 
as to time, since he is with his church for ever. ^^* 
But most of them will feel some difficulty in adopting 
this language for themselves, and in claiming person- 
ally, the attribute of infallibility. It is beyond a 
doubt that there have been, and still are, wicked 
priests, wicked bishops, and even wicked popes. It 
is impossible, therefore, to set up men as infallible 
guides to others, who cannot keep the right way 
themselves. 

Thus we are still without either a written or a 
speaking guide. Is " the church" a mere abstraction; 
or, if we are to listen to her voice, tell us where it is 
to be heard? 

No, answer, however, can be given of a more ex- 
plicit character than that of Dr. Wiseman, when he 
says, "The successors of the apostles in the church of 
Christ have received the security of his own words 
and his promises of a perpetual teaching, so that 
they shall not be allowed to fall into error. It is this 
promise which assures her she is the depository of all 

» Third Lecture of Rev. F. Martyn, Romish Priest of Walsall, p. 63. 



THE TWO RULES COMPARED. 



253 



truth, and is gifted with an exemption from all liabil- 
ity to err, and has authority to claim from all men, 
and from all ndiiions, submissio?i to her guidance and 
direction.^'* 

This sounds well, but still it does not advance us 
one step. Suppose, for a moment, for argument's 
sake, that we admit or take for granted, all that Dr. 
W. says about the church's authority, the question 
still remains unanswered, — if we are to hear the 
church, where, or b^ ivhoin does she speak? Our 
position is, that the Romish rule is more inapplicable 
and less easy of adoption and use, than the Protest- 
ant. So long, then, as Dr. VV. does not deny the 
infallibiUty of the word of God, but merely wishes to 
add another infallible authority to it, he clearly gives 
the advantage to the Protestant, who holds out and 
tenders his rule of faith in the Bible ; inasmuch as he 
seems unable to point out where his further infallible 
rule is to be found. 

The simple truth, however, is, that if Dr. Wiseman 
were able to point out the real seat or dwelling-place 
of his church's boasted infallibility, he would do more 
than the most learned doctors of his church have ever 
yet been able to accomplish. For, in fact, the dis- 
putes upon this very question have been endless, and 
the decision of the question impossible. One party 
contends that the church's infallibility dwells in the 
pope; — others, that it is found only in a general coun- 
cil; a third class, that it is in a pope and council con- 
jointly; while a fourth describes it as resting in "the 
living voice of the great body of Roman Catholic 
pastors." And surely nothing can be clearer than 
this, that until they can settle among themselves 
where this infallibility of the church is really lodged, 
the course dictated by common sense is this, to rest 
content with that infallible rule, — the written word, 
— ^whose excellence and divinity even they them- 
selves do not venture to deny; and to leave the re- 
ception of a further and better guide, until the doc- 

* Wiseman's Fourth Lecture, p. 109. 
17 



254 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

tors of the Romish church can settle it among them- 
selves, where it is to be found. In ihe prodticeable- 
ness, then, — if we may coin such a word, — of their 
rule, the Protestants certainly have the advantage. 
But does not the objection we are considering go 
further than this? 

It certainly does: it demurs to the admission of the 
Bible as our rule; in that, before any one can be 
justified in so receiving it, he must go through a long 
investigation as to the genuineness, authenticity, and 
inspiration of the books of Scripture. Now we are 
to try Dr. W's rule by his own objections. We ask, 
therefore, is it a rational course for the inquirer to 
adopt, to accept any person who calls himself a Ro- 
man Catholic priest, as an infallible guide, without 
any investigation at all? — or can we suppose that 
that investigation, if gone into, would prove more 
easy or more simple than the former one, to which 
Dr. W. so strongly objects? 

For instance: just as Dr. Wiseman objects, that 
before any one can rationally receive this book, call- 
ed the Bible, as the word of God, he must go through 
a long course of inquiry, as to the history of the 
book, — who were its authors or compilers, and what 
is the real nature of its claims; so we now retort 
upon him, that before he himself, or any other priest, 
can expect to be received by a sincere inquirer, as 
the divinely commissioned messenger of God, an ex- 
actly similar, and quite as difficult a scrutiny must 
take place, as to the nature of his claims to be so re- 
garded. Nothing, surely, can be clearer than this. 
If it is unreasonable to expect 'an uninquiring and 
implicit reception of the Bible, even though backed 
by the universal testimony of all times and of all 
countries, how much more absurd would it be to de- 
mand for any one who happened to be called the 
Roman Catholic priest of a certain neighbourhood, 
that same sort of uninquiring and implicit submis- 
sion. Fallibility, and liability to err, it is obvious, 
are fir more likely to be found in a body of some 
tens of thousands of human beings, even supposing 



THE TWO RULES COMPARED. 255 

them to be divinely sent, than in one single book, 
which, if divinely inspired, is doubtless free from 
error. Investigation, then, into their real claims and 
character, if necessary in the one case, is just as ne- 
cessary in the other. This will hardly be denied. 
The only question, therefore, is, which of the two in- 
vestigations is likely to prove the most troublesome 
and laborious. 

Now there can be no doubt that the inquiry into 
the claims of the Romish clergy must be far more 
tedious and complicated than that into the authen- 
ticity and inspiration of the Scriptures; and there is 
also this important difference between them, — that 
while the divine character of the Scriptures can be 
easily demonstrated, so as to be placed beyond the 
reach of a rational doubt, the other inquiry, instead 
of leading us to any satisfactory issue, lands us in a 
quagmire of most unprofitable and interminable con- 
troversies. 

This difference is manifested by all past experi- 
ence. There has never yet been an instance of a 
patient and serious inquirer into the character of the 
holy Scriptures, coming to any other conclusion than 
that of their authenticity and inspiration. On the 
other hand, hundreds of the best and greatest men 
that Christendom has ever seen, have examined into 
the claims of the church of Rome, and have been 
unable to admit them. At least, therefore, it cannot 
be said, that a satisfactory conclusion is as easily to 
be attained in the one case as in the other. But the 
point for which we are now contending is this, that 
an investigation, and a laborious one, is equally ne- 
cessary in both. This is best seen in the utter failures 
of those Romish writers who try to escape from this 
necessity. Take, for instance. Dr. Wiseman's third 
lecture, and see how ludicrously abrupt is his attempt 
to leap to a conclusion on this subject, without hav- 
ing laid down any premises. 

Dr. W. says: " The Catholic falls in with a number 
of very strong passages, in which our blessed Sa- 
viour, not content with promising a continuance of 



256 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



his doctrines, that is to say, the continued obligation 
of faith upon man, also pledges himself for their 
actual preservation among them. He selects a cer- 
tain body of men: he invests them, not merely with 
great authority, but with power equal to his own; 
he makes them a promise of remaining with them, 
and teaching among them even to the end of time: 
and thus, once again, he naturally concludes, that 
there must have existed for ever a corresponding in- 
stitution for the preservation of those doctrines, and 
the perpetuation of those blessings, which our Sa- 
viour came manifestly to communicate. 

"Thus, then, merely proceeding by historical rea- 
.-soning, such as would guide an infidel to believe in 
Christ's superior mission, he comes, from the word 
of Christ, whom those historical motives oblige him 
to believe, to acknowledge the existence of a body, 
depositary of those doctrines which He came to es- 
tablish among men. This succession of persons con- 
stituted to preserve those doctrines of faith, appointed 
as the successors of the apostles, having within them 
the guarantee of Christ teaching among them for 
ever; and this body is what he calls the church. He 
is in possession, from that moment, of an assurance 
of divine authority, and, in the whole remaining part 
of the investigation, he has no need to turn back, by 
calling in once more the evidence of man. For, from 
the moment he is satisfied that Christ has appointed a 
succession of men, whose province it is, by aid of a 
supernatural assistance, to preserve inviolable those 
doctrines which God has delivered — from that mo- 
ment, whatever these men teach is invested with that 
divine authority, which he had found in Christ through 
the evidence of his miracles."* 

Now we would ask any one capable of an impar- 
tial judgment, whether any thing pretending to the 
form of an argument, and yet so preposterously defi- 
cient in all the essential parts of one, was ever before 
seen? For, let it be remembered, the Doctor had just 

* Wiseman's Third Lecture, pp. 63, 64. 



THE TWO RULES COMPARED. 



257 



been objecting to the Protestant rule, in that it re- 
quired a long course of investigation. He therefore 
certainly does not take for granted a similar investi- 
gation in his own proposed rule. His argument is to 
stand just as he had stated it, and it therefore runs 
thus: Christ selected twelve apostles, conferred on 
them the Holy Ghost, and promised to be with them 
and their successors in his church to the end of the 
v/orld: therefore, the Romish church and the Romish 
clergy are infallible guides, and the only infallible 
guides! What connection there can be, between the 
premises and the conclusion, in this proposition, it is 
wholly impossible to imagine! The proof, all-essen- 
tial to the validity of the argument, that the pope and 
the Romish clergy are the rightful successors of the 
apostles, is wholly omitted; and we are desired to 
leap to the conclusion, that because Christ, on the 
Mount of Ascension, promised to be with his church 
to the end of the world, therefore we may go and 
hear Dr. Wiseman at Moorfields, or any other Romish 
priest at any other chapel, with a certainty, that 
"whatever these men teach is invested with divine 
authority;" while all that the other Christian minis- 
ters in the world teach, is nothing but their own un- 
authorized imaginings! May we not ask, whether so 
outrageous a demand on the credulity and simplicity 
of his hearers was ever before made by a preacher 
professing rationality? 

But it may be said, that we misunderstand Dr. 
Wiseman, for that he could not mean to demand an 
implicit assent to such a statement, without a previous 
investigation; and that in his subsequent lectures he 
invites and draws on that very discussion. 

We, however, are only dealing with his argument 
as we find it. We know, indeed, that the Doctor, in 
in other parts of his series, enters upon the remainder 
of the discussion. But we believe that he purposely 
omits it here, and for a very obvious reason. He had 
just been arguing against the Protestant rule, as one 
leading to a long and troublesome investigation; and 
he now presents his own principle, in contrast, in a 



258 



ESSAYS ON R0MANIS3I: 



far simpler and more succinct form. If he had stated 
his argument properly, and not in the absurd way in 
which he has left it, he would have spoiled his own 
contrast; for he would have shown the Romish rule 
to involve quite as tedious an investigation as did the 
Protestant. And that is the point to which we have 
been endeavouring to come; namely, that as the 
adoption and reception of the Bible, as our sole Rule 
of Faith, implies a previous investigation of its claims 
to be considered a divine revelation, so does that sub- 
mission of the mind to the dicta of the Romish priest- 
hood, which Dr. Wiseman demands, imply a previous 
and far more troublesome investigation of the claims 
of that priesthood, to be admitted as the rightful suc- 
cessors of the apostles. And thus when Dr. Wiseman 
asks, "Can the rule, on the approach to wliich you 
must pass through such a labyrinth of difficulties, be 
that which God has given to the poorest, the most 
illiterate, and simplest of his creatures?'' we retort 
upon him his own question, and ask, "Can your 
Rule, in the approach to which the poor man must 
be dragged through all the controversies and quarrels 
of all your threescore folio volumes of councils, be 
that which God intended for the poorest and the sim- 
plest of mankind?" 

We now pass on to the next difficulty suggested by 
Dr. Wiseman, which is this: 

2. Before any one can accept the Protestant Rule, 
it is in the next place necessary, that he should have 
satisfied himself not only that the sacred books are 
genuine and authentic; "but that no such genuine 
work has been excluded, so that the rule be perfect 
and entire." 

This is but an amplification of the last objection. 
But we thank Dr. Wiseman for stating it; since it 
very naturally suggests a kindred difficulty in his own 
course. 

Let us suppose that some one, in his search after 
truth, had followed the course which we just now 
showed to be necessary; had filled up the hiatus in 
Dr. W's reasoning, and had made out the succession 



THE TWO RULES COMPARED. 259 

of the Romish priesthood to the apostles. How clear 
is it that the next step in the inquiry must be that 
which this objection of Dr. W's suggests. He must 
inquire not only whether these persons, claiming to 
be the successors of the apostles, are really so, but 
also whether " no other genuine successors have been 
excluded." The promise made by the Saviour was 
not to a portion of his church, but to the whole; not 
to the successors of Peter only, but to those of James 
and Thomas also. 

Now it is a fact open to every one's observation, 
that the church of Rome is not the only Christian 
church upon earth. We find the Greek church, the 
Syrian, and other eastern churches, and in Europe 
the Protestant churches. Of these, most of the east- 
ern churches are of equal antiquity with that of Rome, 
and among the Protestant churches there are those 
which can trace their descent from the apostolic times, 
without relying upon their connection with the papa- 
cy. Consequently, when Dr. W. claims for his own 
church the sole possession of "divine authority,'' and 
treats all others as heretics and infidels, he /orce^ any 
one who really wishes to understand what he believes, 
to plunge into the whole controversy. 

There is another church, for instance, in the east, 
called the Greek church, which is as unquestionably 
descended from the apostles as that of Rome. She 
was once in fellowship and communion with Rome; 
she is now at enmity. How comes this? Is she 
really a rotten branch — a decayed portion of the 
church? or was she unlawfully and schismatically 
excluded by Rome? Who is to understand all these 
matters without examination? And thus the inquirer 
is immersed, as we just now remarked, in all the 
depths of the ancient church controversies. Yet Dr. 
Wiseman's scheme requires it. He tells us that any 
one who takes the Bible as his rule, " must satisfy 
himself that no genuine work has been excluded, so 
that the rule be perfect and entire." It therefore fol- 
lows of necessity, that if the church, rather than the 
Bible, be taken as the rule, the same necessity exists. 



260 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

of seeing " that no genuine apostolical churches are 
excluded," "so that the rule be perfect and entire." 
But whether this will be an easy task, or whether 
this can be the course marked out by God " for the 
poorest, the most illiterate, and the simplest of his 
creatures," let any reasonable man decide. At all 
events, the Romish rule is not, in this respect, at all 
more easy of application than that adopted by the 
Protestants; on the contrary, much and laborious 
reading is necessary, before we can possibly learn, — 
as, on Dr. W.'s plan, we must learn, — " whether no 
part of the genuine church has been excluded, so that 
the rule be perfect and entire." 

Let us proceed, then, to the third point insisted on, 
which is, that the student is also bound to satisfy 
himself, " whether it be beyond doubt, that these 
books were not only the real productions of their al- 
leged authors, but were actually given by Divine in- 
spiration." 

We have so lately reviewed this part of the subject, 
that it can only be necessary to re-state, as briefly as 
possible, the argument; which goes to prove, if it be 
worth any thing, that until this point be settled, and 
until the inspiration of the Scriptures be firmly esta- 
blished, it is impossible for the Romish clergy to have 
any basis for that church authority to which they lay 
claim. 

The mission of the apostles, and the commission 
and authority conferred on them by Christ, is record- 
ed only in certain passages, not exceeding three or 
four in number, which occur in the gospels. In these 
thirty or forty words — for in so small a compass lies 
the whole proof, — the least error, omission, or mis- 
construction, would make a vital difference. Now 
until we are satisfied that these books were given by 
inspiration of God, and are therefore wholly free from 
error, we cannot possibly feel the least certainty that 
some mistake may not have crept in, — that some lit- 
tle omission or insertion, trivial in appearance, but 
making a mighty diff'erence in the tenor of the whole, 
may not have occurred. Consequently, so long as we 



THE TW^O RULES COMPARED. 261 

have any doubt whether these records are the works 
of fallible men, or of the infallible Spirit of God, so 
long must we hesitate to admit, upon a doubtful foun- 
dation, so vast a matter as the supreme authority- 
claimed by Rome. And thus we see, that the Romish 
church itself cannot even find ground whereon to 
stand, until the inspiration of the Scriptures has first 
been proved; and thus the very same difficulty which 
Dr. W. objects to us, belongs quite as much to his own 
scheme. Rather more, indeed, we ought to say; for 
Protestants have found and established their Rule of 
Faith, as soon as the divine inspiration of the Scrip- 
tures is proved; whereas that is only the first point in 
the inquiry with the Romanist; who, when he gains 
this first position, has in the next place to prove from 
Scripture, the authority of his church; a task which is 
certainly not an easy one. But it is time to draw to 
a close; we will therefore endeavour to state in a few 
words, the remaining three of Dr. W's alleged diffi- 
culties. They are — the difficulty of bringing the Pro- 
testant rule of faith, the Bible, into general use, by 
translating the Scriptures into all languages; — the dif- 
ficulty of providing, especially before the invention of 
printing, a sufficient number of copies; — and the dif- 
ficulty of making the book intelligible to all, even 
when so dispersed. 

Dr. Wiseman seriously alleges these as reasons, 
why the Scriptures could not have been intended by 
God to be the Rule of Faith for all mankind. Ob- 
serve, the BuU of Faith; the standard held up; not 
the chief or the only means of bringing sinners to the 
knowledge of the truth. We are not arguing against 
that great institution of Christ, the preaching of the 
gospel. The question is not, whether preachers as 
well as Bibles shall be sent throughout the world : — 
the question is. What is to be the standard — the Rule 
of Faith — to which these preachers shall appeal! 

Now we say. Send the preacher, and with him send 
the word of God. Let him preach only what he finds 
in that word, and let him constantly appeal to that 
word for confirmation of every doctrine he advances. 



262 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM; 



But the Romish church sends the preacher without 
his credentials, and without his proper commission. 
He may preach Jesuitism or Jansenism, the decrees 
of the Council of Trent, or the decrees of the Council 
of Ephesus; he may preach, in short, what he will, 
for no chart or compass will the church of Rome send 
with her pilots. 

But it is said that translations are made with diffi- 
culty, and are often erroneous. Is it so much easier, 
then, to preach than to write, in a heathen tongue? 
Do the Romish missionaries address the Hindoos or 
Japanese in Latin? If not, — if they can preach to 
them in their own language, without liability to any 
serious blunders, what should prevent them from 
providing for them the gospel of Matthew or the New 
Testament itself? The objection of the difficulty of 
making translations, when advanced by those who 
boast of their missions to the heathen, is perfectly 
frivolous. 

And equally absurd is that of the cost and trouble 
of procuring a sufficient number of copies. It is not 
seriously proposed by Dr. Wiseman, that men shall 
be left without any rule, or any instruction in divine 
things. He would send preachers. Now we are not 
objecting to the use of living missionaries: but when 
the point mooted as a serious objection to the use of 
the Bible as a rule, is, the cost and trouble of procur- 
ing copies, the obvious answer is, that a single living 
preacher must cost from five hundred to fifteen hun- 
dred dollars a year; and that for that sum you might 
supply, every year, several thousand Bibles! 

The last point mooted is that of the difficulty of 
understanding the Scriptures. Now no Protestant 
will attempt to deny that there are deep and holy 
mysteries in the word of God. We could hardly 
suppose it to be a Revelation from heaven if it 
were without them. But we do mean to assert that 
by far the greater portion of the Scripture is plain 
and level to every man's capacity, and full of every 
necessary instruction. Nor, when David declares it 
to be "a lamp unto his feet, and a light unto his 



THE TWO RULES COMPARED. 263 

pathf^ is it either decent or comely for Dr. Wiseman 
to represent it as unintelligible and bewildering. 

But the real question is, Is it the Rule prescribed 
by God himself? The existence of some lofty and 
still obscure prophecies in its pages is nothing to the 
purpose in this question. Here is a book, given by 
inspiration of God, for the use of man. It is, by the 
admission of all parties, wholly free from error or 
obliquity. It declares itself, again and again, to be 
sent to mankind as their infallible guide. And where 
is there any other? Those who tell us that the Scrip- 
tures are not to be understood, ought to show us '' the 
voice of the church;" and let us see if that be more 
lucid and intelligible. But this "voice of the church" 
is no where to be found, save in some threescore 
volumes of records of councils, or writings of fathers, 
which the great mass of the people could never pos- 
sess, nor understand, if they were even to obtain them. 
Dr. Wiseman asks, *' Who ever heard of the propriety 
and wisdom of placing in men's hands a code or rule, 
which it was impossible for the greater portion of 
them to comprehend ?" But we demand, in reply, 
Who ever heard of the propriety or wisdom of placing 
in men's hands no code or rule whatever; of leaving 
them without any other guide or director than a falli- 
ble man like themselves; and of taking away from 
them that which is not denied to be God's own word, 
merely because there are some passages in it which 
are too high for man's comprehension ? 

We trust, then, that we have succeeded in showing 
that in every point suggested by Dr. Wiseman, as a 
ground for disbelieving that God intended the Scrip- 
tures as a rule of faith to man, — the rival rule, put 
forward by Dr. W. himself, — to wit, the church, 
is open to far greater objection. There must be a 
greater difficulty in establishing the authority of such 
a Rule, and a greater difficulty in applying it, if it 
could be established. 



264 



XIV.— INFALLIBILITY. 



ON THE ALLEGED NECESSITY FOR AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH. 



It now seems advisable, and, in fact, almost neces- 
sary, before proceeding further, to take a brief retro- 
spect of the course of argument through which we 
have passed, and to gain, as far as may be, a correct 
idea of our present position. 

The discussion has hitherto turned almost exclu- 
sively on the rule of faith. We have endeavoured to 
maintain the Protestant doctrine; that Holy Scripture 
was the one, sole, and sufficient rule, furnished and 
set forth by God himself; — and to show the untena- 
ble nature of the opposite principle, — that the Catho- 
lic church is the true depositary and only authorized 
expositor of Christian doctrine; dispensing from her 
ample stores, and with divine authority, both Holy 
Scripture and Catholic tradition, as in her wisdom she 
sees fit. In arguing the question we have endeav- 
oured both to establish the Protestant principle, by 
showing the Scriptures to be incontrovertibly genu- 
ine, true, and divinely inspired ; and also to overthrow 
the contrary doctrine, by exhibiting the unfounded 
character of the pretensions of the Romish church. 
With the latter view we have investigated the claims 
of the church of Rome to her assumed title of the 
One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church; and also 
the pretensions of her bishops to be considered the 
successors and representatives of Peter. Both these 
assumptions we found to be utterly untenable. And 
we are now in a position to demand, on behalf of the 
Protestant churches, a decision in their favour, on this 
great fundamental point. 



NECESSITY FOR AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH. 265 

In this stage of the argument, however, another 
view of the question is often raised, and one which it 
seems necessary here to meet. 

It is asked whether we can conceive it possible for 
the Lord Jesus, when he left for a time this earth, 
upon which he was shortly to number thousands of 
faithful followers, to have determined to leave all 
those followers destitute of guidance, subject to no 
authority, included within no pale, but wandering 
about in their isolated and individual characters, free 
to choose or to form a church for themselves, or to 
continue in a state of independence of all churches? 
Can you believe, it is demanded, for an instant, that 
he did not, most deliberately, fully, and of set pur- 
pose, constitute and appoint a church, in which, and 
by which, his gospel was to be preserved and preach- 
ed; and within whose pale all his true disciples were 
bound to range themselves? This, it is assumed, can 
hardly be doubted. But if the fact be admitted, then 
we are asked, where can that church, so founded and 
constituted, be found, except in that body of which 
the sovereign pontiff is the head? 

In her it is said, you find a clear and unquestion- 
able succession, from the very days of the apostles. 
You find her also, ever admitted to stand as the alone 
centre of unity and fountain of authority; while all 
other churches, or rather pseudo-churches, are nothing 
else than so many irregular off-shoots, or run-away 
children, who claim to share in, or to vie with the 
authority, although they lose every vestige of right to 
assume such a position, the moment they rebel against 
her unquestionable rule. We ask, therefore, — it is 
said, — where, admitting, as you must, that Christ 
founded a visible church — where can that church be 
discerned, except in the communion of which the suc- 
cessors of Peter are the head ? A church of Christ, 
established by himself, there surely must be; and 
where, except here, can it be found? 

This is a favourite position with the Romish advo- 
cates in the present day, and we shall not attempt to 



266 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

evade or shrink from its force; but will endeavour 
carefully and deliberately to weigh its value. 

We remark, then, first, that as we have an inspired 
record of the words and actions of the Lord Jesus, 
we have no occasion to imagine for ourselves what it 
was " likely" that he would do, or leave undone. His 
commands, as they are recorded by his apostles and 
evangelists, we are to observe; his institutions we are 
to reverence; but the greatest regard and reverence 
we can possibly show to his memory and his injunc- 
tions, will be exhibited by a careful guarding of those 
injunctions from ail admixture and alloy; and a deter- 
mination to allow no '^commandments of men" to be 
placed on a level with his own provisions, or to rank 
with the institutions established by himself. 

Instead, therefore, of arguing that he must have 
established a visible church: and that that church 
mvst be the church of Rome; it will be far wiser and 
better to go at once to the record, and to ascertain 
beyond the possibility of mistake, what kind or de- 
scription of body it was that he actually t/zW consti- 
tute, and by what course of reasoning it is that Rome 
assumes to occupy this place. 

Now such a reference as this will satisfy us at 
once, that not a single word did Christ ever utter 
touching the Roman see; or the successors of Peter; 
nor a syllable pointing at the supremacy of any one 
church or any portion of the church, whether a larger 
or a smaller section. His latest injunctions and de- 
legation of authority were given at Jerusalem, where 
unquestionably the first Christian church was founded. 
As for the church and see of Rome, we have the best 
ground for asserting that neither the one nor the 
other had any existence for at least thirty years after. 
If, consequently, it was intended by Christ that his 
authority should devolve, on his departure, on the 
see of Rome, it was most wonderful that he should 
have left Rome without any church or any bishop 
for more than a quarter of a century. One thing, 
however, is clear, that if, at any time during thirty 



NECESSITY FOR AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH. 267 

years after the Saviour's death, any one had asked, 
Where the church estabhshed by Christ was to be 
met with?— it would have been instantly replied, At 
Jerusalem, where the twelve apostles generally meet, 
and from whence all decrees touching the government 
of the church do issue. (Acts xvi. 4.) 

But how, then, let us ask, did it ever come to pass, 
that the church of Rome assumed to herself this rank 
and character? 

Unquestionably the basis of the power and autho- 
rity of Rome must be sought for, not in divine, but 
in human decrees. Not a syllable is found in holy 
writ, having even the least tendency that way. Nor 
had the Roman bishop, while the days of persecution 
lasted, any such rank or authority in the church at 
large. But, when the empire became Christian, and 
emperors began to bow down before the prelates of 
the church, then it soon, and very naturally occurred, 
that the bishop of the imperial city assumed a perpe- 
tually augmenting power. And this assumption fall- 
ing in with popular fancies and prejudices, the Roman 
bishop, when the imperial throne itself was removed 
from that city, became the leading person in that 
great metropolis. Then were the pretensions of that 
see daily enlarged, and as a basis for its vast assump- 
tions, the fiction of Peter's primacy was invented, a 
fiction of which the Christian world, during the first 
three centuries after Christ's ascension, had never 
heard a syllable. Such are the simple facts of the 
case. And if the question is again put, whether 
Christ did not himself constitute and establish a visi- 
ble church? we must of necessity reply, that if he did 
so, it must have been the church of Jerusalem, for, 
unquestionably, of the church of Rome he never 
uttered a single word. 

The Romanist, however, will perhaps tells us that 
we have not grappled with the main feature of the 
case. The locality, the seat of authority and of unity, 
— he will say, — may never have been denoted or fixed 
by Christ ; but can it be denied that he left behind him, 
as his representative on earth, a church, a body of 



268 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



men having authority both to teach and to decide 
doubtful points, and aroand which body it was the 
duty of all his faithful followers to collect them- 
selves? 

Again, then, let us rather refer to the facts of the 
case, than to a theory constructed by our own ima-' 
ginations. It is unquestionably true, that when Christ 
left this earth, he did bequeath a certain authority, 
to a body of men whom he had himself selected and 
sent forth to preach his gospel, and whom he had also 
endowed with supernatural gifts and powers. 

At this crisis, too, of the church, the existence of 
such a living and speaking authority, evidently clothed 
with a divine power and commission, was indispensa- 
bly necessary, for this obvious reason — that the books 
of the New Testament were not then written. Not 
possessing, therefore, that rule of faith, by which the 
church is now safely guided and governed, — the 
Christians of those incipient days would have been, 
without some living and applicable source of au- 
thority, evidently open to every temptation of false 
doctrine that could be brought to bear upon them. 
We see, therefore, at once, why the existence of a 
body of men divinely commissioned, and bearing the 
visible tokens of such authority, was absolutely es- 
sential to the church's establishment. 

But the lapse of thirty or forty years worked a vast 
alteration. These divinely inspired and immediately 
commissioned servants of Christ were taught by the 
Spirit to commit to writing the wisdom which they 
had received from above. It was as much a part of 
their mission to form a fixed code and rule of faith 
for future ages, as it was to govern the churches 
which they themselves had gathered and constituted. 
They wrote, therefore, the New Testament, and then 
departed to their rest, leaving, as is by universal con- 
sent admitted, no successors invested with equal pow- 
ers or equal authority. 

It follows, then, that if we would hear the apostles 
actually speaking, not through the clouded medium 
or in the doubtful and diluted language of tradition, 



NECESSITY FOR AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH. 269 

or of erring human interpreters, but in their own 
written works; we must take up the New Testament 
itself, and govern our faith and conduct by its decisions. 
And may we not ask, which of the two classes are 
really paying the most genuine respect to the mission 
and the appointment of Christ; — we, who, acknow-^ 
ledging his authority, speaking through his own se- 
lected servants, accept their writings as our rule; or 
they who prefer to lay aside or overrule these inspired 
records, in favour of certain fallible human beings, 
bishops and cardinals, and the like, merely because 
these men claim to be hneally in succession to the 
apostles, although wholly destitute of all these quali- 
fications which commanded our reverence in Christ's 
own selected messengers. 

Try this by an illustration. The writings of the 
apostles are called, " The New Testament of our 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Now let us ask, 
what, in common usage, is the power of a will or 
testament, and what the power of the executors of 
that will? Does not every one know that the rule in 
every such case must be the will itself, not the notions 
of the executors. And if any question arises, that 
question can only concern this one point, What says 
the will — what is its intent and meaning.^ Nor is 
such question left to the executors themselves, but is 
always referred to a third party. The office of the 
executor is merely ministerial; he is not to add to, or 
take from, the original testament, even in the least 
point or fraction. The will itself \s the rule, which 
governs and decides every thing. Just so is it in the 
present case. The ministers of the New Testament 
have no power to alter or amend that document: 
they are to take it as it stands, without cavil or ex- 
ception. 

But, — the Romanist will say, — you admit that when 
any passage or direction appears doubtful, the ap- 
pointed court must be resorted to for an authoritative 
interpretation. Now that is all that we claim in the 
case of the sacred Scriptures. We sav that the church 

18 



270 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

is that court, and that it was founded and empowered 
to act in that capacity by Christ himself. 

This, however, is not a correct representation of 
the claims of the Romish priesthood. They claim 
^more than a mere power to interpret: they claim a 
further and much greater power, namely, to add to 
the document itself. This is a power never yet 
granted to any executor, and it is a power which, if 
conceded, necessarily makes the testament itself just 
what the executor chooses. 

But the assumption of a right to interpret authori- 
tatively is in itself objectionable. And the objection 
lies here — that the same party claims to be both ex- 
ecutor and judge. The church of Rome assumes that 
the Testament of Christ gives her very great powers 
and privileges. This, to many eyes, is not apparent 
on the face of the document. Aye, but, says this 
same church of Rome, / am appointed by that same 
Testament, the authoritative interpreter of its own 
meaning, and /pronounce that such is the true intent 
of the passages in question. 

What should we say of a judge in equity, who first 
claimed a certain property under a will, which will, 
to other people's eyes, made no such bequest; and 
then sat in his court to decide this very question, and 
to give judgment in his own favour? 

I3ut it vv^ill probably next be asked, where we would 
propose to lodge this power of interpretation, suppos- 
ing questions of difficulty to arise in the perusal of the 
document? 

We can only reply to this by marking the distinc- 
tion between the two cases, and the impossibility of 
reaching, by any human illustration, the height and 
depth of divine things. 

Human beings, men and women, make wills and 
testaments. They are all of them poor fallible crea- 
tures, often unfit for the duty, and not unseldom at- 
tempting it when disabled by disease. It follows of 
necessity that such documents are frequently found 
to be full of errors and faults; and thus a court of 



NECESSITY FOR AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH. 271 

appeal becomes necessary, in order to instruct and 
authorize executors how to proceed. 

Bat the New Testament is the work of an omni- 
scient mind: and it was designed, as we are plainly- 
told, for the instruction of all mankind. It approaches 
to blasphemy, therefore, to compare it with human 
and fallible productions, or to speak of it as not intel- 
ligible to those for whose use it is written. A minis- 
terial duty, it is true, there is; but that duty consists 
in the large and liberal publication of its contents, and 
the explanation of its meaning by the studied com- 
parison of one part with another; never by fastening 
upon it meanings of an arbitrary and foreign charac- 
ter, imported into it, and not belonging to it. Never 
must it be forgotten, that perfection is its attribute, 
and that all addition to it is expressly, and under the 
highest penalties, forbidden. 

But let us return to the question. It was demand- 
ed of us, whether Christ did not establish a visible 
church, to which perpetuity was to belong; and where 
that church was to be found, if not in the Roman com- 
munion? 

We may, perhaps, have seemed to digress, but our 
argument was to this purport; that Christ did indeed 
give to his apostles certain extraordinary powers; a 
special commission; and supernatural gifts, as a sign 
of that commission: that during their lifetime these 
men wrote and spoke with divine authority, mani- 
festly appearing in their works; and by virtue of that 
authorhy they founded many churches, and wrote 
certain books, which collectively, form the New Tes- 
ment. 

Our reasonings then went to this point — that as it 
is admitted on all hands that their miraculous powers 
ceased with them; and as no successors, mauifesting 
a similar commission by similar gifts, have ever ap- 
peared, it follows that the unerring guidance which 
they were enabled to give, during their hves, by their 
personal instructions, must now be sought in their 
inspired writings; — writings, in fact, which we know 
to have been intended for this very purpose. ^^Ixvill 



272 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM : 

\ 

endeavour,^' says Peter, '^Ihat ye may he able, af- 
ter my decease, to have these things always in re- 
membrance.'^^ — 2 Peter, i. 15. Thus we have, in these 
writings, an infallible guide, especially provided for 
our use; while in the mere fallible human beings, 
who, whether at Rome or elsewhere, stand where the 
apostles have stood before them, we have, as we well 
know, nothing but weak and erring men, often misled 
and misleading; sometimes even wicked and hating 
God and his church. 

But probably the question may be repeated in its 
shortest form — Did Christ constitute a church or not? 

We will reply with equal explicitness. He ordained 
and sent forth his apostles to preach the gospel in all 
lands, and to form churches in various kingdoms; 
which are so spoken of in the epistles, as ''the church 
at Corinth;" — "the churches of Galatia;" — "the 
church of the Thessalonians," and sundry others. 
These were all visible churches, known by territorial 
designations, and including within themselves all sorts 
of characters, genuine and counterfeit. There is, how- 
ever, a general and universal church spoken of in va- 
rious places in the New Testament, as the ^^body^^ of 
Christ, (Ephes. i. 22.) as that for which Christ '-gave 
himself, ^^ (Ephes. v. 25.) and as "a glorious church, 
not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing;^^ 
(Ephes. V. 27.) a description which certainly has ne- 
ver belonged to any visible church that the world has 
yet seen, least of all to that of which Cardinal Baro- 
nius, referring to a. d. 912, says, " What was then the 
face of the holy Roman church? How exceedingly 
foul was it, when most powerful, and sordid, and 
abandoned women ruled at Rome," &c. It is clear, 
therefore, that those expressions in Scripture which 
refer to a general or universal church, the spouse of 
Christ, speak of an invisible church, consisting of all 
those who sincerely believe in him, and cling to hun, 
whether in Tartary, in Britain, in Tahiti, or in any 
other part of the world. 

But lastly we shall be referred to the xvth of Acts, 
in which, we shall be told, there is most clearly a 



NECESSITY FOR AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH. 



273 



central body, an admitted and acknowledged autho- 
rity, knitting together in union and oneness of feeUng 
and principle, all the various scattered provincial 
churches of the apostolic days. 

That chapter, however, is perfectly consistent with 
the view we have already given. The company of 
apostles being then at Jerusalem {not at Rome,) and 
there being no New Testament to guide the infant 
churches, those churches naturally and necessarily 
sent up to Jerusalem, to the apostles, whenever any 
doubt arose. But the apostles died, and left no suc- 
cessors in their apostolic authority; but they left the 
New Testament in their stead. Consequently the 
churches ceased to send to Jerusalem for decisions; 
as for sending to Rome, such a course was never 
thonght of for at least a century after this. 

As to one, sole, visible church, then, we see it no- 
where in the New Testament; and we find it nowhere 
in ecclesiastical history. In the apostolical writings, 
we merely meet with a great number of churches in 
various lands and kingdoms, and we find also that to 
the decrees and orders of the apostles, all these 
churches were obedient.. But we hear nothing of 
their subjection even to the church of Jerusalem, 
much less to that of Rome, which was not so much 
as founded until many years after. And in ecclesias- 
tical history, we find, indeed, that about the year 193, 
Victor, then bishop of Rome, assumed to himself the 
power of fixing the period of Easter, but instead of 
any such authority being conceded to him, he was 
sharply reprehended by the brightest light of that 
time, Irenseus; and his decree set at nought through 
the greater part of Christendom. Not in Scripture 
then, nor yet in what is called " Antiquity," in its 
purest and best days, do we find any trace of this 
one, universal, and visible church. 

We shall probably, however, be told that this hy- 
pothesis leaves the church at large in a hapless and 
forlorn predicament. How unlikely, it will be said, 
that Christ should have deliberately left his disciples, 
in all after ages, destitute of authoritative guidance 



274 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

and direction; when it was so easy, as in the Romish 
church has been shown, to estabUsh a centre of 
unity and authority in that apostolic college of which 
we find such clear traces in the Acts of the Apostles. 

We have before observed, that it is useless, and 
therefore idle and almost criminal, to indulge in spe- 
culations of this kind, when we have both God's own 
word, and the records of antiquity to boot, to instruct 
us as to what he was actually pleased to decide upon 
doing in this matter. Let us again glance at these 
two sources of truth, not so much for what we shall 
there find, as for the fullest evidence of the want of 
all support for the Romish hypothesis. Our oppo- 
nents must certainly admit, that if one visible church, 
ruled over by one central authority, had been estab- 
lished by Christ, there must have been some distinct 
and visible traces of it, both in the writings of the 
apostles, and in the records of their Acts; and also in 
the history of the church during the first two centu- 
ries. And it is on the utter silence of both these 
sources of information that we rely, as establishing 
our conclusion, that this visible church, and this central 
authority, are nothing better than mere human in- 
ventions, constructed in some later period. 

Had we, indeed, a college of apostles, or any other 
body of men who could raise the dead to life, or give 
sight to the blind, — sitting on earth at the present mo- 
ment, we should not for an instant hesitate to admit 
their authority. But between a company of inspired 
men, selected and sent forth by Christ himself, and 
evidencing their divine commission by their miracu- 
lous power; and a college of cardinals, named by 
court intrigues, characterized by every shade of folly 
and of crime, and possessing neither infallibility in 
their decisions, nor power in their actions, there is a 
difference as wide as between heaven and earth. 

But we must protest against being supposed to ad- 
mit the church of Christ to be left in a desolate and 
helpless condition. We are not arguing against the 
authority of the apostles of Christ, but /or it. All 
that they were inspired to teach men, they have left 



NECESSITY FOR AN INFALLIBLE CHURCH. 275 

US in the New Testament; and in the study of that 
unerring guide, we have also the promise of the Holy- 
Spirit's teaching. What we protest against is the de- 
sertion of this, the only really apostolic authority ,iox 
human decisions and opinions, whether of fathers, or 
councils, or popes, or bishops. We cling to that apos- 
tolic code, touching the character of which there is no 
doubt, and refuse to admit the jarring and controvert- 
ed claims of men, to be placed in any kind of compe- 
tition with it. 



276 



XV.— THE IDOLATRY OF ROMANISM. 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 

Thus far have we gone, without being able to get 
beyond the first, grand, fundamental question, of the 
Rule of Faith. Our time, however, has not been 
wasted, nor has our progress been tardy; for that 
single point comprises more than one half the contro- 
versy. In fact, it involves the whole. The enmity 
so generally exhibited by the leaders of the Romish 
church towards the Holy Scriptures, sufficiently 
proves that, in their view, the admission of the word 
of God, as the rule of Christian faith and practice, 
must be fatal to their cause. And we are equally 
ready to admit, on the part of Protestants, that if the 
Bible be not our sole and sufficient rule — if we are 
under the necessity of having recourse to tradition, or 
the writings of the fathers, or the decisions of the 
church, in any matter essentially connected with the 
souPs salvation, — then there is little prospect of our 
being able to resist the establishment of the greater 
part of popery. 

The Romanist, however, assures us that we must 
have recourse, at last, to the traditions of the church, 
for many doctrines and practices which are generally 
held among Protestants. How, he asks, can we pos- 
sibly establish the doctrine of the Trinity, or the sa- 
credness of the Sabbath, or the lawfulness of infant 
baptism, without having recourse to the writings of 
the fathers, and the decisions of the church? 

We answer: — The doctrine of the Trinity, in our 
view, can be abundantly established by the words of 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 277 

Scripture; and, in fact, so high and vast is its dignity 
and its weight, that if it were not found in God's own 
word, we could never venture to press it upon any- 
one's belief, on the mere ground that some ancient 
fathers held such a view. 2. The divine institution 
of the Sabbath is upheld throughout the whole Bible; 
and ill the New Testament we have the clearest 
proofs that the day set apart, as the Sabbath, by the 
earliest Christians, under the sanction of the apostles, 
was the first day of the week, to which we now ad- 
here. 3. Infant baptism is not essential to salvation; 
though it is clearly deducible, by way of inference, 
from the tenor of the Old and New Testaments, 
gathering from the first the practice relative to circum- 
cision; and from the second, the substitution, in the 
Christian church, of baptism in its room. But neither 
in the case of infant baptism, nor in any other, do we 
wish to throw the history of the early church out of 
view. We admit the value and importance of such 
records as remain to us: we can even ascribe much, 
though not infallible, authority to them, when they 
harmonize with Scripture; but we cannot accept 
such records as of equal authority with the word of 
God; nor can we consent to be absolutely bound by 
the opinions and practices of men who were as falli- 
ble and erring as ourselves. However, let us now 
briefly review our former arguments, and endeavour 
to take up the question at the point at which we last 
left it. 

It has been our chief object, in all our past discus- 
sions, to ascertain the true standard or rule of faith, 
by which all questions of doctrine and practice were 
to be tried. On the Protestant side, we asserted the 
Bible to be this rule; the Romanist arguing that the 
Bible formed, at most, only a part of the rule, and 
that the teaching of the church was a necessary ad- 
junct; or rather, that the latter was the practical rule, 
or standard for daily use; while the Scriptures were 
rather to be looked upon as the fountain or source 
from whence the church drew her instructions. 



278 



ON eomanism: 



After a large and rather discursive review of the 
whole argument, we came, at last, to this conclusion: 
that the Protestant rule, the written word of God, 
was abundantly established, as to its authority; and 
was both available and sufficient, in its intrinsic cha- 
racter. On the other hand, the main objection to the 
rule of the Romish church was not answered; to wit, 
that it was not available; that it could not be taken 
hold of and applied by a hesitating inquirer. For, 
on a close investigation, the matter was brought to 
this, — either that such an inquirer must accept "the 
teaching of the church" at the hands of an individual 
priest, whom he knew to be fallible and liable to 
error, and in whom he therefore could not, with any 
satisfaction of mind, repose such implicit confidence; 
or else, if he hesitated to take such an individual's 
declaration as to what the church decided or held, he 
was left to wander in almost utter darkness, amidst 
a maze of church controversies, to find out, first, 
where the Catholic church was really to be seen and 
heard; and then, what she had said and done on all 
the controverted points. In this difficulty, then, we 
contended that the Protestant rule was, beyond all 
comparison, the preferable one; for here, in the Bible, 
we possess it, and we can consult it, with perfect ease, 
whenever we need its guidance; and with a feeling 
of perfect security that what we are reading is, truly 
and certainly, the unerring word of the most high 
God. 

The Romanist, however, asks if we can really feel, 
without having first submitted ourselves to the judg- 
ment and instruction of the church, that we have any 
sufficient grounds for our certainty that that book is 
really what we suppose it to be, a collection of the 
writings of the inspired apostles and prophets, con- 
taining the whole of such inspired writings, and con- 
taining none other? 

In answer to this, we demand in return, what is to 
be done with the full and satisfactory arguments of 
Bossuet, Bellarmine, Huet, La Mennais, and divers 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



279 



others of the Romish communion, in proof of the 
genuineness, authenticity, and divine inspiration of 
Scripture, against infidels and sceptical objectors? 

These controversialists and theologians must not 
hold one language at one time, and a totally different 
tone at another. They have satisfactorily shown, 
while combating the infidels and sceptics, that the 
right use of our reason, without submitting it to the 
arbitrary dictation of any human being, or human 
authority, conducts us inevitably to the conclusion, 
that the book called the Bible is a divine revelation; 
or a collection of writings inspired by the Holy Spirit. 
Consequently, having thus argued, and having suc- 
cessfully established this point, they are not now at 
liberty to turn round and espouse the contrary view; 
namely, that it is only by the authority of the church 
that we can learn the divine character of the books of 
Scripture. 

For nothing can be more clear than that if they 
adhere to this assertion, — that it is only by the testi- 
mony of the church that we can know the Scriptures 
to be inspired, — then, with an infidel, who takes their 
church to be nothing else than a system of fraud and 
priestcraft, they have not even a word to say. They 
cannot even begin an argument; for if they admit the 
external evidences of the authenticity and inspiration 
of the Scriptures to be insufficient, the question be- 
tween them and the sceptic is wholly at an end. 
They retire, defeated, even before the combat has 
well begun. 

But let us now endeavour to advance another step. 
Let us assume, as we are entitled to do, that the divine 
inspiration of Scripture is abundantly established. In 
the Bible, therefore, we have a standard, and it is 
clear that the Romish church can oflTer us no further 
or better rule. Let us proceed, then, on this basis, 
that the Bible is to be judge and arbiter of this con- 
troversy. And let us now proceed to take up in suc- 
cession, the various points of difference between the Ro- 
mish and Protestant churches. That which will first 



280 ESSAYS OK ROMANISM: 

demand our attention, is the main accusation brought 
against the Romish church, namely, that she is an 
Idolatrous church: or a community which having 
once been a true church of Christ, has apostatized, 
and fallen into the practice of worshipping and serv- 
ing other gods. This is the view presented of her by 
the apostle John, in the book of Revelation, chap, 
xvii. xviii. and though it may not be expedient, at 
present, to open the discussion as to the interpretation 
of unfulfilled prophecy, there can be no impropriety 
in our gravely and calmly bringing the same accusa- 
tion against the Romish church, upon the evidence of 
facts, which is here stated, in figurative language, 
by the inspired apostle. We charge, therefore, the 
church of Rome with the practice of open, flagrant, 
and unblushing idolatry. 

But Dr. Wiseman starts back with indignation, 
and exclaims, " Idolators! know ye, my brethren, the 
import of this name? That it is the most frightful 
charge that can be laid to the score of any Christian? 
Then, gracious God! what must it be, when flung as 
an accusation upon those who have been baptized in 
the name of Christ, who have tasted the sacred gift of 
his body, and received the Holy Ghost?"* 

Now we are quite aware that the charge we make 
is a most serious one, and one which ought not to be 
lightly hazarded. But when Dr. Wiseman affects to 
recoil back with surprise and indignation at so " fright- 
ful" an accusation, he should remember the real na- 
ture of the separation which exists between the church 
of Rome and the Protestant churches. Those who, 
in the sixteenth century, at the hazard of their lives 
and of all they held dear, separated from Rome, never 
thought of treating the diff'erences which existed, as 
matters of light and trifling moment. If they had not 
believed the grounds of their protest to be both solid 
and of the most vital nature, they would not have 
caused a separation, which if made without sufficient 
ground, must have been a schism. They jeoparded 

* Wiseman's Thirteenth Lecture, p. 93. 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 281 

every thing that life could offer. Hundreds, even in 
England, and thousands in France and Germany, paid 
the forfeit of their decision with their lives; and is it 
now to be made matter of surprise that the charges 
brought by them and by us against Rome, and their 
belief in the truth of which they sealed with their 
blood — should be serious and weighty? If the grounds 
of that separation were not of a deep and fearful na- 
ture, would not the Romanists themselves be justified 
in asking, " Wherefore, for such light and trifling 
causes, have ye broken the unity of the church?" 
We admit, then, that the charge we bring against the 
Romish church is a most fearful one. We admit that 
we charge that church with depriving God of his 
honour, and transferring the worship and adoration 
which should be paid to Him alone, to divers of his 
creatures, who were and are nothing but poor human 
beings like ourselves. 

We commence the inquiry, then, by first lodging 
our formal accusation, that the church of Rome, by 
her worship and adoration of the Virgin Mary, and 
of sundry dead men and women, called "saints," 
does, in effect, rob Christ of his peculiar glory; affront 
the God and Father of our Lord, who hath "given 
him for a covenant of the people, for a light of the 
Gentiles," and set at nought the Holy Ghost, whose 
office it is to glorify Christ, and to shed abroad his 
love in our hearts. In short, that another worship, 
distinct from, and opposed to, the worship of the 
blessed Trinity, is set up; a worship as entirely dis- 
tinct from, and opposed to^ the worship of the only 
true God, as was the worship of the heroes and demi- 
gods of ancient Greece and Rome. But having thus 
opened our accusation, let us at once hear Dr. Wise- 
man's defence; feeling assured that that lucid writer 
has, in his well-considered argument, done more 
justice to the cause of his church, than we should be 
likely to do by any imaginings of our own. The 
Doctor says: — 

"'What is the Catholic belief on the subject of giv- 
ing worship or veneration to the saints or their em- 



282 ESSAYS ON EOMANISM. 

blems? You will not open a single Catholic work, 
from the folio decrees of councils, down to the small- 
est catechism placed in the hands of the youngest chil- 
dren, in which you will not find it expressly taught; — 
that it is sinful to pay the same homage or worship to 
the saints, or the greatest of the saints, or the highest 
of the angels in heaven, which we pay to God; that su- 
preme honour and worship are reserved exclusively 
to him ; that from him alone can any blessing possi- 
bly come; that he is the sole fountain of salvation and 
grace, and all spiritual, or even earthly gifts, — and 
that no one created being can have any power, ener- 
gy, or influence of its own, in carrying into effect our 
wishes or desires. No one surely will say, that there 
is no distinction between one species of homage and 
reverence, and another; no one will assert that when 
we honour the king or his representatives, or our pa- 
rents, or others in lawful authority over us, we are 
hereby derogating from the supreme honour due to 
God. Would not any one smile, if he did not give 
way to a harsher feeling, were he taxed with defraud- 
ing God of his true honour, because he paid reverence 
or esteem to others, or sought their intercession or as- 
sistance? It is wasting time to prove that there may 
be honour and worship, — for, as I will show you pre- 
sently, this word is ambiguous, — that there may be 
reverence or esteem demonstrated, so subservient to 
God, as in no way to interfere with what is due to 
him. 

"What I have cursorily stated, is precisely the Ca- 
tholic belief regarding the saints: that they have no 
power of themselves, and that they are not to be 
honoured and respected as though they possessed it; 
but at the same time that they are intercessors for us 
with God, praying for us to him, and that it is right 
to address ourselves to them, and obtain the co-opera- 
tion of this, their powerful intercession, in our behalf. 
The very distinction here made excludes the odious 
charge to which I have alluded with considerable 
pain. For the very idea that you call on any being to 
pray to God, is surely making an abyss, a gulf be- 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 283 

tween him and God; it is making him a suppliant, a 
dependant on the will of the Almighty: and surely 
these terms and these ideas are inexact contradiction 
to all we can possibly conceive of the attributes and 
qualities of God. 

'' But I go further still. Instead of taking any thing 
from God, it is adding immensely to his glory: by 
thus calling on the saints to pray for us, instead of 
robbing him of a particle of the honour which belongs 
to him, we believe him to be served in a much nobler 
way than any other. For we thereby raise ourselves 
in imagination to heaven; we see the saints prostrate 
before him in our behalf, offering their golden crowns 
and palms before his footstool, pouring out before him 
the odours of their golden vials, which are the prayers 
of their brethren on earth, and interceding through 
the death and the passion of his Son. And surely, if 
this be so, we are paying to God the highest homage, 
which his apostle describes as paid in heaven; for we 
give occasion, by every prayer, for this prostration of 
his saints, and this outpouring of the fragance of their 
supplications. Such being the Catholic belief regard- 
ing the saints, we must be further convinced that it is, 
and can be, no way displeasing to God, that we should 
show a respect and honour to their remains on earth, 
or to those images and representations which recall 
them to our remembrance. Nay, we believe more 
than this: for we believe that God is pleased with 
this respect we show them, insomuch as it is all ulti- 
mately directed to honour him in them. We doubt 
not that he may be pleased to make use of such out- 
ward and visible instruments, to excite the faith of his 
people, and to bring them to a disposition of fervour, 
which may produce salutary eff'ects.'^* 

Such is the doctor's statement of the doctrine. Let 
us now turn to his proofs from Scripture: — 

"In the book of Daniel, for instance, we read of 
angels sent to instruct him, and we have mention 
made of the princes, meaning the angels of different 

* Wiseman's Thirteenth Lecture, p. 93—95. 



284 ESSAYS ON Romanism: 

kingdoms. In the book of Tobias, which, whatever 
any one present may think of its canonicity, as I said 
on a former occasion of the book of Maccabees, must 
be considered at least as a strong testimonial of the 
belief of the Jews, — we find these words expressly 
put into the mouth of an angel; ^ When thou didst 
pray with tears, and didst bury the dead, and didst 
leave thy dinner and hide the dead by day in thy 
house, and bury them by night, I offered thy prayers 
to the Lord.' In the book of Maccabees we have 
the same doctrine repeated. It is there said, that 
Onias, who had been high priest, appeared to Judas 
Maccabeus, ' holding up his arms, and praying for 
the people of the Jews.' After this, there appeared 
also another man, admirable for age and glory, and 
environed with great beauty and majesty. Then 
Onias said, ^ This is a lover of his brethren, and of 
the people of Israel: this is he that prayeth much for 
the people, and for all the holy city, Jeremias the 
prophet of God.' Such then was the belief of the 
Jews, and such it is at the present day. 

''But is there any thing in the New Testament to 
contradict it, and give reason to suspect for a moment 
that our blessed Saviour rejected and reprobated this 
conviction? Does he not, on the contrary, speak of 
it as a thing well understood, and in terms which, so 
far from reproving, must have gone far to confirm 
his hearers in this belief? 'Even so,' says our Sa- 
viour, ' there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner 
that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just, 
that need not penance.' What is here signified, but 
that communion of which I spoke, whereby a sinner's 
repenting here below is matter of joy and gladness to 
the angels? And we are elsewhere taught that the 
saints of God shall be like his angels. We have 
also the angels of individuals spoken of: and we are 
told not to offend any of Christ's little ones, or make 
them fall, because their angels always see the face of 
their Father who is in heaven. Why, this to all 
appearance goes as much as the Catholic belief, and 
more, to affect the superintendence and guidance, and 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



285 



general providence of God. That we are to take care 
•to avoid sin, because it offends the angels — that we 
are to avoid being the cause of these little ones' fall, 
because their angels see the face of God ! What 
does this mean, but that they have an influence with 
God, and will use it to bring down judgment on the 
offender? For, in fact, wherefore is the connexion 
between the angels and men alluded to, except to 
show that the former, enjoying the divine presence, 
have a powerful advantage over us, which they will 
use to bring signal judgment down on the heads of 
the offenders? And what is that but establishing a 
communion and connexion between them and their 
little charge in the way of intercession? 

"But in the Apocalypse we have still stronger au- 
thority, for we there read of our prayers being as per- 
fumes in the hands of angels and saints. One bless- 
ed spirit stood before a mystical altar in heaven, 
* having a golden censer, and there was given to him 
much incense, that he should offer the prayers of all 
saints upon the golden altar, which is before the 
throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the 
prayers of the saints ascended up before God, from 
the hand of the angel' And not only the angels, but 
the twenty-four elders, cast themselves before the 
throne of God, and, as I before remarked, pour out 
vials of sweet odours, which are the prayers of the 
saints. What does all this signify, but that they do 
present our prayers to God, and become intercessors 
with him?"* 

Such, then, is the whole that the learned Doctor 
can offer, in the way of proof from Scripture. So 
signal a failure ought of itself to decide the whole 
question. Prayer is the one grand topic of the Bible. 
Every saint therein described was eminently a man 
of prayer. Not less than five hundred times do we 
find prayer, and the act of praying, distinctly spoken 
of. And yet, with all Dr. Wiseman's research and 
ingenuity, he is only able to find four passages in the 

* Wiseman's Thirteenth Lecture, p. 101-103. 
19 



286 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

Old Testament, and four in the New, from which he 
can possibly draw an inference suited to his views! 
And on even a very cursory examination, we shall 
find that not one of these lends the least countenance 
to the practice of the Romish church. 

Besides these, indeed, the Doctor quotes two verses 
from the Apocryphal books, but they can have no 
authority in the matter. The care of the books of 
the Old Testament Avas committed by God to the 
Jewish church: '^ Unto them,''^ says Paul, ^^ were 
committed the oracles of God.^^ (Rom. iii. 2.) Now 
the Jewish church never acknowledged the books of 
Tobit or the Maccabees as inspired writings. We can 
have nothing, therefore, to do with them in this mat- 
ter. And, in fact, it is sufficient to observe, that the 
council of Laodicea, held in a. d. 367, and that of 
Chalcedon, held in a. d. 451, and attended by six 
hundred and thirty bishops, while settling the canon 
of Scripture as then held, say nothing of these books 
of Tobit and Maccabees. Equally unknown were 
they to Origen, to Eusebius, to Athanasius and to 
Hilary. It was reserved for the Romish church of a 
later age, — finding that a few passages like those 
which Dr. Wiseman has quoted, told in favour of 
their awful fictions of purgatory and prayer to the 
saints, — to gather up and adopt these forgeries which 
had lain unheeded and disregarded for many hundred 
years. 

Dr. Wiseman, however, feeling the weakness of 
this part of his case, proposes to use them '^as a 
strong testimonial of the belief of the Jews.'' 

Nothing can be more irrational. Here are two old 
books, one of which, Tobit, is a mass of childish ab- 
surdities. And of the other, it is sufficient to say, 
that it approves and lauds an act of suicide! Neither 
of these books was ever admitted by the Jews into 
the canon of the Scriptures, nor yet by the early 
Christian church. What are they, then? Simply 
two old books, representing the opinions of none but 
tVieir writers. How can books that were rejected ixom. 
the first, by the whole body of Jewish rabbis, furnish 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 287 

any ^testimonial of the belief of the Jews?'' Per- 
haps, however, it is but consistent, that the worship 
of false and spurious mediators should be supported 
by the authority of false and spurious books of Scrip- 
ture ! 

Let us pass on, then, to the other eight passages, 
which Dr. Wiseman quotes from the sacred writings. 
These will occupy us but a very short time. The 
first four are taken from Daniel, and are as follows: 

" I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, 
which called and said, Gabriel, make this man to 
understand the vision.''^ (chap. viii. 16.) 

" Yea, while I was speaking in prayer, even the 
w.an Gabriel, ivhom I had seen in the vision at the 
beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me 
about the time of the evening oblation^ (chap. ix. 
21.)^ 

" Then he said unto me, Fear not, Daniel, for 

from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to 

understand, and to chasten thyself before God, thy 

words were heard, and I am come for thy words.^^ 

(chap. X. 12.) 

" And at that time shall Michael stand up, the 
great prince which standeth for the children of thy 
people.^^ (chap. xii. 1.) 

Now we beg to ask, what more does any one 
of these texts tell us, than what is declared of the 
angels in Heb. i. 14. " t^re they not all ministering 
spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be 
heirs of salvation?^^ 

But on this point there is no controversy. No Pro- 
testant denies the ministry of angels. The question 
is, who is to be addressed in prayer, the angels or 
saints, or their Lord and master? Now on this point 
we have Scripture examples. In 2 Kings, vi. 17, 
Elisha prays, " O Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, 
that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of 
the young man, and he saiv, and behold the moun- 
tain was full of horses and chariots of fire round 
about Elisha.^^ Here, then, were the ministering 
spirits. But with them close at hand, Elisha thinks 



288 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

not of them, addresses them not, but thrice within 
four verses, "prays unto the Lord." In like man- 
ner said Jesus himself, " Thinkest thou that 1 cannot 
NOW PRAY TO MY Father, and he shall presently 
give memore than twelve legions of angels V^ (Matt, 
xxvi. 53.) All these four passages from Daniel, then, 
which merely speak of the angels as "ministering 
spirits,'^ prove nothing whatever in this question, ex- 
cept perhaps that Dr. Wiseman was sadly at a loss 
for a few authorities from Scripture. 

But are the other four texts which he cites of any 
higher value? Let us see. 

The first is from Luke xv. 7, 10. " Likewise I say 
unto yoit, there is joy in the presence of the angels 
of God over one sinner that repenteth.^^ This goes 
no further than the passages in Daniel. That the 
angels are "ministering spirits," we admit. They 
must often be spectators of the recovery of a sinner 
unto God, and must spread the intelligence among 
their companions. And that intelligence, we are told, 
produces universal joy among these bright spirits. 
But what is there in all this, to justify or encourage 
our addressing prayers to them? Clearly nothing. 

The next passage (Matt. xxii. 30.) merely asserts, 
that the saints shall be as the angels. But as we 
have not yet found a single authority for praying to 
the angels, of course we have none for praying to the 
saints. We come next to Matt, xviii. 10. " Take 
heed that ye offend not one of these little ones, for I 
say unto you, That in heaven their angels do al- 
ways behold the face of my Father ivhich is in hea- 
ven.''^ Still not one word authorizing prayer to them. 
Last of all, we are referred to Rev. viii. 3, 4. '•'• Jlnd 
another angel came and stood at the altar, having 
a golden censer; and there was given unto him much 
incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of 
all saints upon the golden altar which was before the 
throne.^^ This passage is highly figurative. No one, 
of course, imagines the existehce of a material altar, 
or a golden censer, or earthly incense. Upon such a 
passage, unsupported by any other in the whole 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 289 

Scripture, it is impossible to rest an important doc- 
trine. The very interpretation of it, in the writings 
of the leading Romish commentators, is wholly incon- 
sistent with Dr. W's view. Thomas Aquinas de- 
clares the angel to be none other than the Lord Jesus 
Christ: and the Jesuit Viegas says: ''All interpreters 
do confess, that by the angel is meant our Lord Christ, 
because of none other can it be said, that he offers 
up to the Father, after so glorious and majestic a 
manner, the incense, that is the prayers of all saints 
upon the golden altar."* And of the accuracy of 
this interpretation there can be no doubt; for the 
golden censer, borne by the angel, pertained only to 
the High Priest. t And " the High Priest of our pro- 
fession" is Christ Jesus. Whether, however, the angel 
be Christ or not, there is nothing said in this place of 
any prayers addressed to the angel by the saints on 
earth. And that is the only point for which we are 
in search. Not one of all Dr. Wiseman's texts 
reaches this point, or even approaches to it. 

But there is another passage in the Revelation 
which the Romanists are accustomed to quote in this 
argument: it is only adduced, however, by less wary 
advocates than Dr. Wiseman. It occurs at the tenth 
verse of the nineteenth chapter. The angel there 
spoken of had been instructing the apostle in many 
things, and the apostle adds, " *dnd I fell at his feet 
to worship himy Thus far is the text usually quoted 
by Romanists. But Dr. Wiseman was too cautious 
to meddle with this passage, for he well knew that 
the very next words are, " And he said unto 7ne, See 
THOU DO IT NOT, I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy 
brethren that have the testimony of Jesus, worship 
God." This is, in fact, the only passage in the whole 
Bible that, taken imperfectly, might seem to lend 
countenance to the worship of saints and angels. But 
the Holy Spirit, foreseeing this great evil, instantly 
adds the most decisive condemnation, and thus leaves 
no opening whatever for the error to creep in. 

* Apoc. chap. viii. sect. 2. t Hebrews ix. 3, 4, 7. 



290 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

And now let us review the whole tenor of Scrip- 
ture as to this question. Dr. Wiseman has ransacked 
the Bible; he has passed over more than jive hun- 
dred passages in which prayer and worship and sup- 
plication is named, and not a single text can he find, 
which lends the least colour to the worship of saints! 
This, of itself, ought to decide the whole question. 

For remember what is the inevitable inference: 
We have the annals of the Jewish church through 
fifteen centuries; that church possessed as eminent 
saints as any that subsequent ages have seen; Abra- 
ham, "the friend of God:" Moses, with whom God 
" talked face to face, as a man talketh with his friend:" 
Jacob, who "had power with God, and prevailed:" 
David, "the man after God's own heart:" Elijah, 
who only, besides Enoch, " was not, for God took 
him:" Daniel, the "man greatly beloved." All 
these we read of in their turn; but not one prayer 
or invocation do we find, addressed to them by the 
Jewish church, throughout all these fifteen hundred 
years! 

And then, coming down to the apostles' times, we 
find John the Baptist; Stephen, the first martyr; and 
James the brother of John, all sent to their heavenly 
home by martyrdom in the course of a few years. 
And we have Paul writing epistles to various 
churches for more than twenty years, and John for 
more than fifty years, after the departure of these 
three martyrs. How, then, let us ask, came it, if the 
invocation of departed saints was so right, and fit, 
and proper, as Dr. Wiseman represents it, — that no 
one of all the prophets, no one among all the apostles, 
once counsels it, or so much as mentions it, as a 
usual and laudable practice in the church? Prayer, 
as we have seen, was among their most constant 
topics. How, then, is it, that prayer to Abraham, or 
to Elijah, or to Stephen, is never once mentioned in 
all their writings? Negative proof, stronger than this, 
it is, we conceive, scarcely possible to imagine. 

But Dr. Wiseman goes on to adduce a variety of 
instances from the writings of Irenasus, Origen, Cy- 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 291 

prian, Eusebius, Basil, Athanasius, and other fathers, 
in which the practice of the early church is alluded 
to, and in which the invocation of the saints is con- 
stantly taught. 

Not questioning the truth of these quotations, we 
may yet refuse the inference, that the practice of the 
church in the second, third, fourth, and subsequent 
centuries, is at aU binding upon us. We reject it, 
first, because Paul, in writing to the Thessalonians, 
had warned them that "a falling away," or apostasy, 
was at hand ; and that " the mystery of iniquity" was 
already, in his, the apostle's time, at work. (2 Thess. 
ii. 3,7.) It is clear, therefore, that when we find 
new practices and new doctrines creeping into the 
church, subsequently to the apostle's days, we ought 
at least to suspect, that these were some of the mani- 
festations of that "mystery of iniquity" which he had 
declared to be already at work, and which was to 
produce a great "falling away." 

But, secondly, we refuse to be governed by quota- 
tions from Cyprian, Origen, Basil, or Gregory Nazi- 
anzen, for another very sufficient reason; that these 
eminent men, great and honourable as most of them 
were, were still, like ourselves, fallible and variable; 
and did, in fact, continually change their opinions, 
and confess their errors from time to time. And thus 
it comes to pass, that while the advocate of one view 
can always replenish his quiver from the armoury of 
the fathers, with arguments for the affirmative of any 
question, the opponent finds it equally easy to gather 
from them reasons on the negative side in the same 
controversy. And what can be the end of such con- 
tention, but either a weariness and disgust at such 
senseless proceedings, or a sceptical doubt whether 
such a thing as truth is possibly to be discovered? 

In the present case it is just as easy to find passages 
in the writings of the fathers against the worship 
of the saints, as in favour of such a practice. For 
instance, Origen says, "We must pray to him alone 
who is God over aU; and we must pray to the only- 



292 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

begotten Son of God, the first born of every creature; 
and we must entreat him as our High Priest, to pre- 
sent.our prayers when they come to him — to his God 
and our God, to his Father and ours."* 

Jithanasius tells us: "It appertains to God only 
to be worshipped, and the angels themselves are 
aware of this; for although they surpass others in 
glory, they are all creatures, and not beings to be wor- 
shipped, but beings who worship the Lord. The 
angel, therefore, admonished Manoah, the father of 
Sampson, saying, " Offer not to me but to God."t 

Gregory Nazianzen says: " The word of God has 
ordained that none of those things which have their 
being by creation shall be worshipped by men. Moses, 
the law, the prophets, the gospels, and all the apos- 
tles, forbid our looking to the creature. "J 

And Epiphanius is still more decided, warning us 
that "Neither Elias is to be worshipped, nor yet 
John. Nor is Thecla, nor any of the saints to be wor- 
shipped. For that ancient error shall not prevail over 
us, to forsake the living God, and to worship the 
things that are made by him. For they worshipped 
and served the creature more than the Creator, and 
thus became fools. And if an angel will not be wor- 
shipped, how much more will not she who was born 
of Anna?" " Let Mary be had in honour, but let the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost be worshipped. 
Let no man worship Mary."§ 

These few passages, which might be indefinitely 
increased, show that if we were to go to the fathers 
for decision of the question, we should merely involve 
ourselves in an inextricable maze of conflicting opin- 
ions. But we have already decided, that the Bible, 
and the Bible only, is to be the standard to which 
appeal is to be made. And never, assuredly, did 

* Origen against Celsus, lib. viii. 

t Athanasius, Third Oration against Arians. Paris, 1627. 
\ Gregory Nazianzen, Fourth Oration against Eunom. torn. ii. p. 
144. 
§ Epiphanius against Heretics, sec. 79, pp. 448, 449. 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 



293 



advocate more entirely fail, than has Dr. Wiseman, 
in the attempt to support saint-worship by Scripture 
authorities. 

But we shall probably be told, that we confound 
two things which Dr. Wiseman justly discriminates, 
namely, that highest worship which is due only to 
God, and that minor degree which may blamelessly 
be paid to his creatures. We shall be reminded, that 
the words "worship," "worshipful," "your worships,'^ 
are constantly applied by Protestants to magistrates 
and other authorities, when invested with the insig- 
nia of their office. Our argument, however, does not 
turn upon the mere use of the word worship, but 
upon the very nature of the homage and adoration 
paid by Romanists to the saints, as in itself unlawful 
and idolatrous. And we will now take up the solemn 
question, put in such indignant terms by Dr. Wise- 
man, Why we venture to charge the Romish church 
with idolatry? — and in answering this interrogation, 
we shall endeavour to show three things: — 

1. That the doctrines and practices of the Romish 
church, touching the adoration and invocation of the 
saints, are opposed to the spirit and tenor of the 
gospel: 

2. That they are also opposed to the plain injunc- 
tions of Scripture: 

3. That they do amount, in the generality of cases, 
to absolute and very gross idolatry. 

First, then, we propose to show that these doctrines 
and practices oppose and counteract the main object 
and intent of the gospel. That intent we shall not 
venture to describe in our own words, but shall adduce 
the descriptions of the apostles themselves, 

Paul tells the Ephesians, 

** But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were 
far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For 
he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath 
broken down the middle wall of partition between 
us: Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even 
the law of commandments contained in ordinances; 
for to make in himself of twain one new man, so 



294 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

making peace-, Jind that he might reconcile both 
unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the 
enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to 
you, which were afar off, and to them that were 
nigh. For through him, we both have access by one 
Spirit unto the Father.^^ (Eph. ii. 13 — 18.) 

To the Corinthians he writes, 

"• All things are of God, ivho hath reconciled us to 
himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the 
ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in 
Christ, reconciling the world unto himself not im- 
puting their trespasses unto them; and hath com- 
mitted unto us the word of reconciliation. Now, 
then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God 
did beseech you by us: we pray you iii Christ's 
stead, be ye reconciled to God.'' (2 Cor. v. 18 — 20.) 

To the Colossians: 

''For it pleased the Father that in him should all 
fulness dwell; and, having made peace through the 
blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto 
himself: by him, I say, whether they be things on 
earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were 
sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by 
wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body 
of his flesh through death, to present you holy and 
unblamable and unreprovable in his sight," (Col. 
i. 19—22.) 

And so writes Peter: 

" Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just 
for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.''' 
(1 Peter iii. 18.) 

And John, 

" That which we have seen and heard declare we 
unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; 
and truly our fellowship is loith the Father, and 
with his Son Jesus Christ." (I John i. 3.) 

" Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have 
we confidence toward God. And whatsoever we ask, 
we receive of him, because we keep his command- 
ments, and do those things that are pleasing in his 
sight." (1 John iii. 21, 22.) 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 295 

" God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dweU 
leth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love 
made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day 
of judgment : because as he is, so are we in this 
world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love 
casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He 
that fear eth is not made perfect in love.^^ (1 John iv. 
16—18.) 

*^ These things have I written unto you that be- 
lieve on the name of the Son of God, that ye may 
know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may be- 
lieve on the name of the Sen of God. Jlnd this is 
the confidence that we have in him, that if we ask 
any thing according to his will he heareth us. (1 
John V. 13—15.) 

These passages, to which many others might be 
added, will exhibit better than any language of ours 
could do, the great end and object of the gospel, 
which is, TO bring men nigh unto God. By the 
fall, a "great gulf was fixed" between man and his 
Creator. As a sinner, man, until a reconciliation is 
effected, dares not lift up his eyes to heaven. His 
mind is always averted with dread, from a view of 
his angry Judge; and this fear, and dread, and aliena- 
tion, it is Satan's chief object to keep up. So long, 
he well knows, as this alienation exists, man must 
remain entirely in his power. 

But this enmity and distance it was the great ob- 
ject of the gospel to remove. Man could not approach 
God; God, therefore, by the wonderful contrivance of 
Redemption, approached man, in order to draw man 
to Himself. " Christ, ^^ says Peter, '^ hath once suf- 
fered for our sins, the just for the unjust, that he 
MIGHT BRING US TO GoD." (1 Peter iii. IS.) And 
^^ therefore,''^ says Paul, " being justified by faith we 
have PEACE with God through our Lord Jesus 
Christ; by whom also we have access by faith unto 
this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of 
the glory of God.'' (Rom. v. 1, 2.) 

Now all this beautiful plan of the divine wisdom, 
it is the endeavour of Satan, by every possible device, 



296 ESSAYS ON eomanism: 

to counteract. His constant labour is, to persuade 
man that there is not this perfect reconciliation; that 
he must not dare to approach God with filial confi- 
dence; that there is some degree of terror and austeri- 
ty yet remaining, which makes it far wiser and more 
desirable to use the intercession of others, rather than 
to throw himself before the divine footstool. And 
having succeeded in creating this feeling of dread and 
distance, the next attempt is to throw a similar de- 
gree of awfulness and terror around the character of 
Christ; and to argue that human beings like our- 
selves, would be more likely to listen with sympathy, 
and to plead our cause with earnestness, than so great 
a person as the only begotten Son of God. And in 
inculcating this false view, he is mainly aided by the 
church of Rome, whose theologians constantly assert it. 

"You lament," says Dr. Milner, "that your pray- 
ers to God are not heard; — continue to pray to him 
with all the fervour of your soul; but why not engage 
his friends and courtiers to add the weight of their 
prayers to your own? Perhaps his Divine Majesty 
may hear the prayers of the Jobs, when he will not 
listen to those of an Eliphaz^^'' &c.* " Beg of her, 
then, (the Virgin) vtith affection and confidence, to 
intercede with Jesus, for you."t "The saints," says 
Dr. Wiseman, "look down upon us with sympathy, 
take an interest in all that we do and suffer, and make 
use of the influence they necessainly possess with God, 
towards assisting their frail and tempted brethren on 
earth.":}: " We may turn to them in the confidence of 
brethren, and ask them to use their influence with 
their Lord and Master, which their charity and good- 
ness necessarily move them to exert."§ 

Now what is the drift and inevitable effect of all 
this; — but to convey an impression to the penitent 
and praying mind, that there are others in heaven 
whose ears are more open to his prayers, and whose 
hearts more readily sympathize with his griefs and 

* Milner's End of Controversy, 18mo. p. 370. t Ibid. p. 371. 
t Wiseman's Thirteenth Lecture, p. 98. § Ibid. p. 98. 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 297 

necessities, than either the "Father of Mercies,'' or 
" the Good Shepherd, who bears the lambs in his 
arms and carries them in his bosom, and gently leads 
those that are with young." The whole tenor of this 
system, then, is to augment the distance between 
Christ and the sinner; to separate and drive apart 
those whom the gospel was intended to re-unite and 
make one; and to hinder men from seeking help 
where alone it is to be found, in their almighty and 
all-merciful God and Saviour. And thus it is that it 
shows itself clearly opposed to the whole tenor and 
purport of the gospel dispensation. 

But further, or rather as a necessary consequence — 
It contradicts the plain declarations of Sc7'ipture. 

Most explicitly does Christ declare of himself, "/ 
am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh 
unto the Father hut by me.''' (John xiv. 6.) '^ Ify^ 
shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.^^ (ver. 
14.) " Verily , verily , I say unto you. Whatsoever ye 
shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it 
you.^^ (chap. xvi. 23.) 

Paul is equally clear on this point: " // is Christ 
that died, yea, rather that is risen again; who is 
even at the right hand of God, who also maketh in- 
tercession for us.'''' (Rom. viii. 34.) 

" There is one God, and one Mediator between God 
and men, the man Christ Jesus,'^ (1 Tim. ii. 5.) 

" Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be 
made like unto his brethren, that he might be a mer- 
ciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining 
to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the 
people: For in- that he himself hath suffered being 
tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempt- 
ed.'' (Heb. ii. 17, IS.) 

" We have not an High Priest which cannot be 
touched with the feeling of our infiy^mities; but was 
in all points tempted like as we are, yet luithout sin. 
Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, 
that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in 
time of need." (chap. iv. 15, 16.) 

" Wherefore he is able also to save them to the ut- 



298 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

termost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever 
liveth to make intercession for them.^^ (chap. vii. 25.) 

^' Jlnd for this cause he is the Mediator of the 
New Test anient. ^^ (chap. ix. 15.) 

" For Christ is not entered into the holy places 
made with hands, which are the figures of the true; 
but into heaven itself now to appear in the presence 
of God for us.^^ (ch. ix. 24.) 

John follows ill the same strain: 

''If any man sin, we have an advocate lOith the 
Father, Jesus Chynst the righteous: and he is the 
propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but 
for the sins of the whole world.'' (1 John ii. 1, 2.) 

'' *B.nd this is the confidence that we have in him, 
that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he 
heareth %is: And if we know that he hear us, ivhat- 
soever we ask, we know that we have the petitions 
that ive desired of him.'' (1 John v. 14, 15.) 

Now we would boldly ask, whether language could 
possibly be more distinct and full on this point, that 
Christ is our one mediator; that he ever heareth 
the prayer of the penitent; and that by him no one is 
ever sent empty away? What folly, then, or rather, 
what Satanic delusion is it, to turn away from this 
great High Priest, the appointed channel of commu- 
nication between God and man, and to prefer our pe- 
titions to Gregory, or Januarius, or Mary, rather than 
unto him! 

But although the apostles chiefly dwell on the 
truth in this matter, and seem not to have had much 
presage of the false doctrine that should arise, they 
do once or twice allude to this subject, and with the 
strongest abhorrence. Writing to the Colossians, 
Paul counsels them: 

" Let no man beguile you of your reward in a 
voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, in- 
truding into those things which he hath not seen, 
vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." (Col. ii. S.) 

And to Timothy he writes: 

'' Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the 
latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 299 

heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils (or 
demigods.^^) (1 Tim. iv. 1.) 

Such, then, is the clear and broad testimony of 
Scripture on this point; and let it be remembered, that 
on the other side not a word can be found, as we have 
already seen, which gives the least countenance to the 
notion of the propriety of seeking other intercessors 
or mediators, than *' the one mediator between God 
and man, the man Christ Jesus." 

But we must now proceed, in the last place, to 
show that this practice, a tendency to which we admit 
to have shown itself in the church as early as the 
third and fourth centuries, but which was fixed and 
consolidated by the Romish ecclesiastical power, when 
carried to the extent to which Rome has carried it, 
amounts to nothing less than absolute and positive 
Idolatry. 

y For what is idolatry? It is the setting up a strange 
god; the giving to some creature of God's hand, or 
some invention of our own fancy, the place and the 
rightful dominion of God himself. 

Now this worship of "demons," or dead men, is 
chargeable with this guilt, in two particulars: 

1. That it ascribes to human beings the incommu- 
nicable attributes of God; and, 

2. That it devolves upon the same human beings 
the peculiar offices and honours of Christ. 

It ascribes to "demons," or dead men, the incom- 
municable attributes of God. 

Among these we may chiefly name his omnipre- 
sence and omniscience. These are constantly spoken 
of in Scripture as God's own peculiar and distinguish- 
ing attributes. 

" Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place, 
and forgive, and do, and give to every man accord- 
ing to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; {for 
thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the 
children of men.'''') (1 Kings viii. 39.) 

*< Shall not God search this out? for he knoweth 
the secrets of the heart.^' (Psalm xliv. 21.) 

" Thou compassest my path and my lying down, 



300 ESSAYS ON bomanism: 

and art acquainted ivith all my ways. For there 
is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O Lord, thou 
knowest it altogether. Whither shall I go from thy 
Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?'^ 
(Ps. cxxxix. 3, 4, 7.) 

" Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall 
not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven 
and earth? saith the Lord.^^ (Jer. xxiii. 24.) 

" Neither is there any creature that is not mani- 
fest in his sight: but all things are naked and 
opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to 
do."' (Heb. iv. 13.) 

And it is the persuasion of this peculiar and all-im- 
portant fact, which draws forth man's faith and 
prayer. It is because "m Him we live, and move , 
and have our being^^ that " the eyes of all wait upon 
Him, and He giveth them their meat in due season.^' 
And thus it is that the Psalmist addresses God, by an 
allusion to this attribute, as essentially His own : " 

THOU THAT HEAREST PRAYER, Unto thcC shall all 

flesh come.^^ 

We might proceed to argue, next, upon the abso- 
lute impossibility of this attribute being communicated 
to, or conferred upon, any mere creature. There is 
nothing irreverent in saying, that there are attributes 
which God himself could not confer upon another. 
A creature, for instance, who was formed only yes- 
terday, cannot be made to be eternal, or from before 
all time. But we forbear urging this point, not to 
plunge into metaphysical discussions. We prefer to 
press this plain doctrine, — that to ascribe one of these 
great and peculiar attributes of God to a mere human 
being, without the least ground for so doing, either 
in Scripture or in common sense, is to be guilty of an 
act in the highest degree dishonourable to God, and 
partaking largely of blasphemy. 

To come to particulars: The church of Rome causes 
perpetual supplications to be sent up, from every cor- 
ner of the globe, and from the secret of the heart, as 
well as by audible voices, to the Virgin Mary: Now, 
we beg to know what ground any one can have for 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 301 

supposing that anyone of these suppUcations is really 
heard by the virgin? 

We have a right to ask this question; for he who 
teaches a worship no where commanded in Scripture, 
is clearly bound to shov/ that it is grounded on some 
principle reconcilable with common sense. Whereas, 
every man's own knowledge and experience is op- 
posed, at first sight, to this theory. We know that a 
creature, a human soul, cannot be in two places at 
once. And even if we were to imagine it possible 
for the soul of the virgin to be conscious of a whis- 
pered prayer breathed forth by a nun in Sicily, we 
should still find it difficult to conceive the possibility 
of her being also aware, at the same instant of time, of 
other prayers offered up in Canada or in Tranque- 
bar. Now, we admit, willingly, that all such difficul- 
ties as these must be surrendered, the moment the 
words of inspiration are heard. But we cannot sub- 
mit to any thing less authoritative. We cannot give 
up the conclusions of our own reason merely out of 
deference to the opinions of Bernard or of Hilary. 
We ask, therefore, is it meant to ascribe to the virgin 
the language used only by God himself, '-Bo T not 
Jill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.'^ Or are 
we to alter the words of the Psalmist, and say, '^ The 
eyes of Mary are in every place ^ beholding the evil 
and the good?^^ What, in short, are we to understand 
to be the actual belief, touching the mode in which 
these "saints" are made acquainted with the petitions 
of their worshippers? 

This question is answered by Bellarmine in the fol- 
lowing terms: — 

"Concerning the manner in which they know what 
is said to them, there are four opinions among the 
doctors, — 

"1. Some say that they know it from the relation of 
the angels, who at one time ascend to heaven, and 
at another time descend thence to us. 

<^2. Others say that the souls of the saints, as 
also the angels, by a certain wonderful swiftness 
which is natural to them, are in some measure every 

20 



302 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM; 



where, and themselves hear the prayers of the suppU- 
cants. 

"3. Others, that the saints see in God all things, 
from the beginning of their beatitude, which in any- 
way appertain to themselves; and hence even our 
prayers which are directed to them. 

"4. Others, lastly, that the saints do not see in the 
Word our prayers from the beginning of their blessed- 
ness, but that our prayers are only then revealed to 
them by God, when we pour them forth. '^^ 

Now if one of their greatest men, as Bellarmine is 
accounted to have been, could give no more rational 
account of the matter than this, it looks as if their 
case were indeed a bad one. Christ says, in one of 
the texts we heard just now, ''' Whatsoever ye shall 
ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.^^ 
Instead of which, according to ther first of these ima- 
ginations, the angels are employed in carrying our 
prayers to the saints, who in their turn carry them 
either to Christ or to the Father! Is this circuitous 
course to be preferred to the plain path described by 
Christ, without the clearest necessity, or the most dis- 
tinct injunctions? As to the second fancy, quickness 
of motion is not omnipresence, nor can it ever answer 
the same end. But the third and fourth are still more 
preposterous. God, it is supposed, hears our prayers 
and reveals them to the saints, that they may repeat 
them to him! Why, a system is self-condemned at 
once, that is only to be defended by such hypothesis 
as these! 

The simple truth is, that there is no middle course. 
Either the virgin Mary, and not the virgin only, but 
all the Ursulas, and Benedicts, and Dunstans,and Gre- 
gories in the Romish calendar, are absolutely omni- 
present, and are, therefore, so many Gods; or else, if 
they remain creatures, confined to one place at a time, 
and knowing only what is communicated to them by 
such channels as are consistent with their finite and 
created state and character, then there must ever re- 

* Bellarmine. De Sanct. Beat. li. i. c, 20. 



THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. 303 

main the utmost uncertainty, and in fact improbabili- 
ty, as to the safe passage or conveyance of each 
prayer we offer up to them. In a word, if they hear 
all the prayers addressed to them, then they are Gods, 
and not creatures: but if they are not Gods, but finite 
and imperfect creatures, then they cannot hear all the 
breathed^ or whispered aspirations which ascend to- 
wards them, from twenty nations of the earth at the 
same moment of time. If the Romanist embraces 
the latter supposition, then he should give up saint- 
worship. But if he will not do this, then must he 
admit that he makes to himself new Gods! 

God is dishonoured, then, by our ascribing his 
essential and incommunicable attributes to divers 
of his creatures. But still more is his displeasure 
excited, when His own way of salvation is set at 
nought, and the offices and honours which He has 
conferred upon Christ are attributed to some of those 
poor sinners whom Christ came to save. Now this is 
constantly done by those who pray to the saints in- 
stead of praying to Christ, and ask of them those very 
blessings which it is his peculiar pleasure and glory 
to bestow. " Come unto me," says Jesus himself, 
" all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will 
give you rest.^^ Rather turn, says Dr. Wiseman, to 
the saints, and " ask them to use their influence" with 
Christ. No, says Paul, " there is one God and one 
Mediator between God and 7nen, the man Christ 
Jesus.^^ But, rejoins Dr. Wiseman, '' it adds immense- 
ly to His glory, it is paying him the highest homage, 
when we thus give occasion for the prostration of the 
saints before him on our behalf" On the contrary, 
we reply, what greater disrespect can we show, than 
by neglecting the course prescribed, and choosing 
other ways of approach unto God? " /«m the way, 
the truth, and the life,'^ sailh Christ, " no man cometh 
unto the Father, but by me." " I am the door; by 
m,e if any man enter, he shall be saved, and shall go 
in and out, and find pasture.^^ And Paul de- 
clares, again and again, in the strongest and clearest 
terms, that he is our great High Priest, our only In- 



304 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM. 



tercessor, and that he '^ has entered into heaven itself, 
now to appear in the presence of God for us.^^ And 
he therefore argues, "Ze^ us come boldly unto the 
throne of grace, that ive may obtain mercy and find 
grace to help in time ofneed.^^ 

Dr. Wiseman, however, argues that "the saints 
look down upon us with sympathy; and that we 
may turn to them with the confidence of brethren,'^ 
and ask them to use their influence with their Master. 

This is indeed one of the greatest affronts that can 
possibly be offered to Christ. " Greater love,^^ said 
the compassionate Saviour, "/m^A no man than this, 
ihat a man lay down his life for his friends. ^^ "/ 
am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am 
known ofmine.^^ 

It is little to say, that no human records have por- 
trayed, nor has the mind of man conceived, a cha- 
racter of such exceeding love and sympathy, as is 
that of Christ. The truth is, that even the outlines 
and rapid lineaments of that character which are 
afforded us in the brief narratives of the evangelists, 
are beyond the reach of our minds and souls. The 
tenderness and compassion of that heart, which 
yearned, even to weeping, over a city whose in- 
habitants he well knew, were in a few short hours, 
to raven like wolves for his blood; — nay, which, even 
when actually suffering intolerable agonies of their 
infliction, cried out, not for himself, but for them, 
Father, forgive them, for they know not ivhat they 
do! — the unutterable love of that heart, who can at- 
tempt to fathom! Yet it is from this compassionate 
Saviour that we are taught to turn, with doubt and 
apprehension, and to "beg of Mary to intercede with 
him on our behalf" And we are to ask such a be- 
ing as Dunstan, or Dominic, or Joseph, " to use his 
influence" with Jesus, to induce him to listen to our 
petitions! Intolerable insult! horrible blasphemy! 
God-dishonouring profanity! What words shall we 
use, rightly to describe this awful system of delusion! 



305 



XVI.— THE IDOLATRY OF ROMANISM. 



IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 

Our last essay, though somewhat prolonged, was still 
necessarily limited to a consideration of the principle 
discussed. Little was said of the practice which 
grows out of that principle. We endeavoured to 
show that, even as described by the Romish casuists, 
the doctrine of the Invocation of Saints was in the- 
ory indefensible, and opposed to the whole spirit of 
Christianity. But we cannot stop here. We are 
compelled, if we would do justice to the subject, and 
to this inquiry, to consider also that doctrine as it is 
practically known among us. And this will be, in 
truth, the test to which the matter must be brought. 
We have alleged that the system of worship in the 
Romish church is idolatrous in its character and ten- 
dency. If we are right, we shall be sure to find the 
manifestation of that tendency, in the worship of 
those who adhere to that church. This, therefore, 
will naturally offer itself as the subject for our pres- 
ent consideration; namely, to show that the worship 
of the church of Rome is not only founded on princi- 
ples which lead to idolatry; but is actually seen, in 
the conduct of its adherents, to produce that result. 

With this view, we must consider the real nature 
of the worship which is current in the church of 
Rome; as a system idolatrous throughout; a system 
which, from one end to the other, constantly interpo- 
ses some other object of worship between the crea- 
ture and the Creator, and thus effectually precludes 
that intercourse and converse between God and man, 
which at first existed in Eden, — which Adam lost by 



306 



ESSAYS ON eomanism: 



transgression, — and which it is the main object of the 
gospel to restore. 

In Dr. Milner's xxM letter, he loudly vaunts the 
vast advantage possessed by his church, in the greater 
means of saiwtity^xovidiQiij'iw her sacraments, public 
services, confession, and prescribed private devotions. 
But there is one important distinction which he seems 
to have forgotten; to wit, that between worship of a 
laborious, costlj?- and splendid character, and worship 
rightly offered. We readily admit that the Romish 
church furnishes her votaries with many and most 
elaborate forms; with more sacraments than the apos- 
tles ever knew; with penances, and processions, and 
pilgrimages, which the apostles would have abhorred; 
but all this is nothing to the purpose, or rather it only 
the more proves our position. We do not charge the 
Romish church with abolishing, or discontinuing, or 
neglecting the services of the sanctuary, but with/?er- 
vertiiig them. And let us remember that the cautions 
given in Scripture are more frequently directed against 
superstitious, pharisaical, or ill-directed worship, than 
against the neglect of worship altogether. The pro- 
phets were frequent in such warnings — " To what 
purpose, '^ sa-ys Isaiah, i. 11. ^'is the multitude of 
your sacrifices unto me? saiththe Lord: I dm full 
of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed 
beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or 
of lambs, or of he-goats. When ye come to appear 
before me, who hath required this at your hand to 
tread my courts. Bring no more vain oblations; 
incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons 
and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot 
away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. 
Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul 
hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to 
hear them.^' 

In the same strain follows Amos: ^^ I hate, I despise 
your feast-days, and I will not smell in your solemn 
assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt offerings 
and your meat-offerings, I will not accept them: 



IDOLATROUS WORSHIP, 



307 



neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat 
beasts.^^ (chap. v. 21.) 

But Paul must be our chief authority in this mat- 
ter, as one who was especially " the apostle of the Gen- 
tiles,'^ and who was inspired to write no fewer than 
fourteen different epistles, filled with instructions and 
warnings to the early Christian churches. And those 
instructions and warnings are most full and explicit 
against every one of those things in which Rome 
chiefly prides herself. We will just run over a short 
list of them. 

1. Rome lays great stress on her multitude of holi- 
days, most of which she makes positively obligatory. 
Paul dismisses the matter thus — " One man esteem- 
eth one day above another ; another est eemeth every 
day alike. Let every 7nan be fully persuaded in his 
own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth 
it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the 
day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.'''* (Rom. xiv. 
5,6.) 

2. Rome is most particular in forbidding meat on 
certain days in every week. Paul, on the contrary, 
leaves every man to his own mind and conscience, 
" For one believeth that he may eat all things; an- 
other, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that 
eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him 
which eateth not, judge him that eateth.^^ (Rom. xiv. 
2, 3.) And in another place he says — 

" For meat commendeth us not to God: for neither 
if we eat are we the better; neither if we eat not, are 
we the worse.^^ (1 Cor. viii. 8.) 

3. Rome makes celibacy a duty appertaining to the 
Christian ministry. Paul says — 

" Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, 
as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the 
Lord, and Cephas?^^ (1 Cor. ix. 5.) In another place, 
he says — 

"t/^ bishop must be blam,eless, the husband of one 
wife:' (1 Tim. iii. 2.) 

And with reference to both this and the last point, 
he warns Timothy, that '^ in the latter times some 



308 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM '. 

shall depart from thefaith^ giving heed to seducing 
spirits^ and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hy- 
pocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot 
iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to ab- 
stain from meats, which God hath created to be re- 
ceived with thanksgiving of them which believe and 
know the truth.^^ (1 Timothy iv. 1 — 3.) 

4. Rome encourages the practice of following, as 
devotees, some particular saint, as leader or head; as 
St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Benedict, and many 
others. Whereas Paul vehemently contends against 
this very practice. 

'^ For while one saith, I am of Paul, and another, 
I am of Apollos, are ye not carnal? Who then is 
Paul, and who is t/ipollos, but ministers by whom 
ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? 
I have planted, Jipollos watered, but God gave the 
increase. So then, neither is he that plant eth any 
thing, neither he thatwatereih; but God that giveth 
the increase.'''* (1 Cor. iii. 4 — 7.) 

5. And, while Rome prides herself on her ''means 
of sanctity," as she denominates her elaborate ritual, 
her multitude of holidays, her holy water and conse- 
crated oil, her various fastings and penances, and all 
the rest of her burdensome observances, Paul sums 
up the whole in one general condemnation. 

" Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in 
drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, 
or of the Sabbath days : which are a shadow of things 
to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man be- 
guile you of your reward in a voluntary humility 
and worshipping of angels, intruding into those 
things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by 

his fleshly mind. Wherefore, if ye be dead 

with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, 
as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordi- 
nances, ( Touch not, taste not, handle not; which all 
are to perish with the using:) after the command- 
ments and doctrines of men? Which things have i?i- 
deed a show of wisdom in will worship and humility, 



IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 



309 



and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to 
thesatisfying of the flesh.'' (Col. ii. 16— 23.) 

The great thing to be borne in mind is, that all 
these forms and modes of worship, which the church 
of Rome makes all-important, are, after all, mere cir- 
cumstances; and the essence, the reality of the wor- 
ship, is in no way identified with any one of them. 
Our Lord directed the mind of the woman of Samaria 
to this fact, when she began to demand of him, " Is it 
here, or is it there, — is it according to this form, or to 
that, that we ought to worship? He instantly turned 
her mind from places and forms, telling her that the 
time was at hand when ^' ye shall neither at Jerusa- 
lem, nor in this mountain, worship the Father f' for 
that " the hour comet h. and now is, when the true 
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and 
in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship 
him. God is a Spirit; and they that worship him 
must ivorship him in spirit and in truth.'' (John 
iv. 23, 24.) 

Now the main charge we bring against the Romish 
church is, that it hinders, as far as possible, this spi- 
ritual adoration; by interposing visible and present 
objects of worship; by interposing also invisible and 
absent, but false mediators; and by elevating the 
priesthood itself into the Saviour's place. Let us con- 
sider these three particulars. 

Let us fix the mind on the Avorship of the early 
Christian churches, as we find it described in Scrip- 
ture, and in the earliest records, and on that of the 
Protestant churches, — and then contrast this simple 
worship with the ritual and ceremonies of the Romish 
church. In the writings of the apostles, in the prac- 
tice of the early church, and in that of the Protestant 
churches of our own time, we constantly observe but 
one object of worship, the Triune Jehovah:, who is 
invisible; who is a Spirit; and who therefore must be 
approached by an effort of the mind, and soul, and 
spirit. The business of the worshipper is with Him 
alone. This business can only be carried on, really, 
by the heart and mind, and only to any good purpose, 



310 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM; 



by the assistance of the Holy Spirit. All other helps 
will prove only hinderances. Place what you will 
between the soul and God, as an imaginary ladder or 
stepping-stone, the heart instantly rests on that, and 
ascends no higher. This Satan well knows, and 
therefore it is that he has so artfully provided, in the 
Romish ritual, — 

1. A present God to be worshipped and adored, in 
the form of a wafer: 

2. Images of Christ and the saints; in the various 
representations of the cross, on which our salvation 
was wrought out; of the Virgin, and of various real 
or supposed saints: 

3. A whole army of mediators and intercessors, in 
heaven, or in the upper regions of the air, who are to 
be prayed to,, in the belief that they are more acces- 
sible, and have a readier sympathy with our wants 
and miseries, than either Christ or the Father: 

4. A priesthood endowed with miraculous powers! 
— who can create God himself out of a wafer — who 
can endow water or oil with medicinal or restorative 
or protective power by a word; and at whose sen- 
tence the sins of their votaries depart, and souls spring 
up out of purgatory into heaven. 

Now all these inventions of Popery have a direct 
tendency to intercept and break off the spiritual inter- 
course which ought to be carried on between man and 
God. They all present to man other refuges, other 
reliances, other Saviours, than Him ^' whom God hath 
exalted;" and therefore they are all, intrinsically and 
practically, in nature and in effect, positively idola- 
trous. 

But we shall be reminded, that we dwelt on this 
topic in our last essay. Let us then, pass from our 
own views and opinions, to the recent confessions of 
a Roman Catholic priest, the Rev. David O'Croly, of 
Cork, who in his late work on the differences between 
Protestantism and Popery, thus laments the weight 
of superstition which has encumbered the worship of 
his own church: — 

" Nothing can be more complicated than the Ro- 



IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 



311 



man Catholic ceremonial. Simplicity, the original 
characteristic of Christianity, has been abandoned. 
The Roman pontifical, containing the various cere- 
monies to be performed by bishops, is a volume of 
considerable bulk, larger by far than the New Testa- 
ment. Catholic divines admit that this pontifical 
contains a great quantity of superfluous matter, which, 
however, is not to be passed over, so long as it re- 
mains on the statute-book. The council of Trent has 
even gone so far as to anathematize all such as should 
presume, of their own private authority, to retrench 
or to alter any portion of it. Bishops themselves, 
much less the clergy of the second order, have no 
choice or jurisdiction in such things. This law, how- 
ever, is sometimes disregarded by refractory indivi- 
duals, who, pressed by time or actuated by careless- 
ness, or for other reasons best known to themselves, 
skip over many of the prescribed ceremonies, and 
hasten to the conclusion of their work. 

"The ceremonies of the mass, how multifarious! 
Genuflections and crosses without number; compli- 
cated movements; the quarter-wheel, the semicircu- 
lar, and the circular, as the case may require; the 
repeated shifting of the book from side to side, and 
the blaze of candles amid the glare of the meridian 
sun. Doubtless the generality of priests attach little 
importance to these matters; not so the congregation, 
who would be highly scandalized if the mass suffered 
any defalcation in this respect. 

"The devotional exercises of the multitude in 
general are of a very odd description; scarcely a 
house without a consecrated bead, a religious piece 
of furniture supposed to possess extraordinary vir- 
tue, particularly if consecrated by the pope. This 
guides them in the arrangement of their prayers, 
most of which are addressed to the blessed Virgin, 
whom the bead-gentry invoke ten times for once they 
invoke the Almighty. Nor is this mode of praying 
confined to the vulgar and illiterate. It is prescribed 
in the common prayer-books, is repeated by priests 
publicly at the altar, and is practised in all the nun- 



312 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



neries and religious communities. The costume of 
a nun is incomplete unless a consecrated bead hangs 
dangling from her girdle. In the chair of confession, 
the satisfactory works imposed generally consist of 
so many rosaries to be repeated on the five decad or 
fifteen decad bead within a certain limited time. At 
the mass, especially in country chapels, you will 
scarcely hear any thing but rosaries — Jive Maria ten 
times, and Pater Noster once. This disproportionate 
alternation is kept up, without intermission, from the 
beginning to the end of mass, from the ' Introibo^ to 
the gospel of St. John. If they stay at home from 
mass on a Sunday or holiday, they repeat a rosary 
or two on their bead as a set off against the omission. 
In short, the rosary, which should be called their de- 
votion to the Virgin, forms the sum total of their reli- 
gious worship. The Virgin is transformed into a 
divinity, of whom her female votaries constantly 
crave pardon for their transgressions. The Colliri- 
diani, as we learn from Epiphanius, were condemned 
as idolaters in the primitive church, for a custom they 
observed, of offering a cake as a sort of sacrifice in 
honour of the Virgin. It would not be easy to show 
that the cake of the Colliridiani was more opposed to 
the purity of divine worship than this perpetual 
rosary. It is, indeed, quite certain, that the Virgin 
never enjoyed higher honours or prerogatives than 
she does among her female votaries now-a-days, at 
least in old Ireland. The late Dr. Moylan, Roman 
Catholic bishop in Cork, ordered the litany of the 
blessed Virgin, or the litany of our Lady of Loretto, 
(a place celebrated in the annals of sacrilegious ro- 
mance,) to be recited always before mass, throughout 
his diocese; which odd practice is still observed under 
his enlightened successor. He also instituted monthly 
processions, at which this litany is chanted in her 
honour. 

" The litany in question is nothing but a formidable 
series of adulatory epithets bestowed on the Virgin, 
for the purpose of procuring her favour and interces- 
sion. It is of general use, and is reckoned by some 



IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 313 

indispensable. It is, however, more common in some 
places than in others, m.ore used by women than by- 
men, and more by the ignorant than by the well-in- 
formed. The priest recites the litany on his bended 
knees; but, when the mass commences, he stands 
erect. This is odd enough. He addresses the Virgin 
on his knees, and he addresses the Almighty in a 
standing posture! He shows more respect to the 
creature than to the Creator. Much of the same hap- 
pens when the hymn, 'Ave maris stella^ — ' Hail, 
star of the sea' — is sung in her honour, or to procure 
her favour. At thie first verse all go on their knees, 
as is done at the verse, ' O crvx ave^ — ' Hail ! 
cross!' — when chanting the hymn, 'Vexilla Regis,\ 
in honour of the cross — a posture of adoration un- 
heeded when hymns are sung in honour of God. 

" What a multitude of odd ceremonies is connected 
with the use of holy water! It is astonishing what 
virtue is ascribed to this consecrated element. No- 
thing can be blessed or hallowed without it; neither 
candles nor new fruits, nor new-laid eggs, nor ships, 
nor dwelling houses, nor churches, nor bells, nor sa- 
cerdotal vestments. It is used in the administration 
of all the sacraments, before mass and after mass, 
and at the churching of women. Nothing, in short, 
can be done without holy water. Even the butter 
churn is sprinkled with it before the churning com- 
mences, that the cream might work the better. It 
purifies the air, heals distempers, cleanses the soul, 
expels Satan and his imps from haunted houses, and 
introduces the Holy Ghost as an inmate in their 
stead. It is generally believed that the holy water 
blessed at Easter and Christmas possesses superior 
virtue: on which account several tubs or barrels full 
must be blessed upon these occasions, in order to 
supply the increased demand. Protestants being 
quite incredulous as to the miraculous virtues as- 
cribed to holy water, have abolished the use of it, 
and are of opinion that it bears a strong resemblance 
to the lustral water that was commonly used in the 
rites of pagan superstition. 



314 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

" Salt, in like manner, is pressed into the ceremo- 
nial of religion, probably because in the New Testa- 
ment the apostles were called the salt of the earth. 
It is blessed for a variety of purposes. After being, 
first of all, duly exorcised itself, it is made use of in 
the administration of baptism and in the manufacture 
of holy water. 

" The ceremonial of blessing the oils — the oleum 
injirmorum, the oil for the sick, the oleum catechu- 
Wjenorum, the oil of catechumens, and the chrism,a 
or chrism^ is complicated beyond measure, and mag- 
nificent withal. On Maundy Thursday it is conse- 
crated by the bishop, robed in his pontificals, in the 
presence of the diocesan clergy, robed in their vest- 
ments; who all, at the appointed times, while it is in 
progress of consecration, worship it by triple genu- 
flection, salutation, and psalmody! The holy oil is 
adored on Maundy Thursday, just as the cross is on 
Good Friday; on which latter occasion also, a multi- 
plicity of odd ceremonies takes place. 

'' The worship of inanimate things is justified on 
the score of its being merely relative; that is, referable 
to something really entitled to our adoration. There 
may be some reason in this. But what object of this 
kind is there to which the adoration of the oils may 
be referred? 

"The efficacy of this benediction lasts but for one 
year; at the expiration of which, it is understood 
that the holy oil becomes unfit to communicate grace, 
and should be committed for combustion to the de- 
vouring element of fire. The solemn consecration by 
the bishop, backed by a multitude of crosses and in- 
sufflations, &c. performed by the body of priests in at- 
tendance, proves insufficient to protect it from the in- 
juries of time and the decay of nature; just as hap- 
pens to the consecrated host, which, when it happens 
to suffer decomposition, is acknowledged to be no- 
thing more than decayed bread, unfit to nourish either 
body or soul. 

"Nothing can exceed the complication and multi- 
tude of the ceremonies observed in the conferring of 



IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 315 

holy orders: which, though reckoned one individual 
sacrament, and of a spiritual nature, is, like matter, 
divisible ad infinitum. You have particular ceremo- 
nies for the consecration of a pope, for the consecra- 
tion of a patriarch, for the consecration of an arch- 
bishop, for the consecration of a bishop, for the con- 
secration of an abbot, for the ordination of a priest, 
for the ordination of a deacon, for the ordination of a 
sub-deacon, for the collatyon of the four minor orders 
of reader, of porter, of acolite, of exorcist, and, finally, 
for giving the prima tonsiira. What a tremendous 
ceremonial! What a cumbrous machinery of reli- 
gion! and from such simple beginnings! 

" Religion, indeed, was overloaded with extrava- 
gancies at an early period. St. Augustine complains 
of the vast increase of whimsical ceremonies in his 
time. He says, ^ things in this respect had arrived 
at such a pitch of absurdity, that Christianity, which 
was freed from the servitude of the ceremonial law, 
had become more enslaved than Judaism itself— that, 
in short, the simplicity of the gospel had been forgot- 
ten.' If this saint were alive at the present day, he 
would have infinitely more reason to complain on this 
score. Many Catholic theologians are of the same 
opinion with the holy father; but have not the same 
honesty or courage to give publicity to their senti- 
ments. Thus it is that, between the connivance or 
timidity of some, and the interested imposture of 
others, the errors of the ignorant are confirmed, and 
true religion lies buried beneath an accumulated 
weight of extravagance, absurdity, and superstition.''* 

Such is the account of the matter given by a priest 
of the Romish church. It is true, he is at present un- 
der suspension, but not for ill conduct or false doc- 
trine; but merely, or chiefly because, as may be per- 
ceived in this extract, his eyes have been partly open- 
ed to the errors and superstitions of the Romish 
church. Let us, however, return to the subject. We 
take up a little book called "The Daily Companion; 
or, Little Pocket Manual." And here, in it, we find 

» O'Croly's Inquiry, 8vo. pp. 139—146. 



316 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

the rosary, exactly as Mr. O'CroIy has described it. 
It is given as "ordered by his hoHness Pope Pius 
V.;^' and it is so contrived as to be suited, by a suc- 
cession of changes, for every day in the year. Each 
day's service contains five "mysteries," as they are 
called; and after every "mystery" follows, 

"Our Father," &c. once. 

"Hail Mary," &c. ten times. 

So that, in the morning's devotion, the little prayer 
beginning "Hail Mary," would be repeated no fewer 
than fifty times. And this is, we have no doubt, ac- 
tually performed, day by day, by hundreds of misera- 
ble devotees. 

Fifty prayers to the virgin; and only ten to God;— 
and this is by no means an exaggerated proportion. 
So ready is the human mind to run to any refuge ra- 
ther than that salvation which God has provided, and 
to cling to any intercessor rather than to Him who is 
"exalted to give repentance and remission of sins;" 
that it is upon record that in the cathedral of Canter- 
bury, in the days of England's darkness, "Whereas 
there used to be three offerings made by the people in 
that church — one to Christ, another to the virgin Mary, 
and another to Thomas a Becket, the oblations made 
at the altar of Thomas a Becket did generally amount 
to eight hundred or a thousand pounds, those to our 
Lady's to two hundred pounds; while those to 
Christ's would be Jive marks, and sometimes "Aoc 
anno nihilP^ this year nothing. So certain is it, that 
if other intercessors or objects of worship are al- 
lowed at all, they will immediately draw away our 
hearts from Him who ought to be the great object 
of worship, and thus work our infinite loss and ha- 
zard. From which we see at once the wisdom and 
the necessity of that rule which puts down at once all 
other or subsidiary worship, and declares, that "^o 
us there is but one God, and one Mediator between 
God and men, the mari Christ Jesus.^' (1 Tim. ii. 5.) 

The Romanist, however, exclaims loudly that he 
holds, as firmly as we can do, one sole Mediator of 
salvation; but that this does not prevent his recog- 
nizing many mediators of intercession. 



IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 317 

These subterfuges may delude the more simple. 
But let any man of common sense judge whether the 
great mass of mankind, — for whom, as much as for 
the intelligent and the learned, Christianity is intend- 
ed, — whether such can be expected to understand 
these nice distinctions, or the other degrees and gra- 
dations, as of worship of dulia, and worship of latria, 
and the like. We met with an anecdote the other day, 
the truth of which is so internally apparent, that we 
offer no excuse for transcribing it. The narrator says, 

" A Protestant clergyman, personally known to the 
writer, once entered into conversation with a Romish 
priest in the gaol of Carrick. As religion was the 
subject, they did not speak much before controversy 
was introduced. The Priest accused Protestants of 
want of candour in charging Roman Catholics with 
praying to the blessed virgin. ^' We don't pray to 
her, sir," said he; "'tis a calumny to assert it; we 
only ask her intercession.^^ " But,"' replied the minis- 
ter calmly, "the Council of Trent decreed that even 
the saints, whom it regards as entitled to a degree of 
worship inferior to that which is due to the blessed 
virgin, are to be suppliantly invoked (suppliciter 
invocari) and it teaches, too, that this invocation may 
be mental: now to me it seems that the man who 
kneels to an invisible being, and presents his sup- 
plications to that being, in thought, may, without 
any abuse of language, be said to pray to him: but 
even were I to admit that the difference which you 
wish to establish really exists, still I cannot but fear 
that the common people are incapable of making such 
nice distinctions." " I tell you," rejoined the priest, 
^'it is not the case; they can understand this matter 
as well as I do." " 1 should like," said the minister, 
"to be assured of this; however, I shall put it to the 
proof Come here, my man," addressing himself to 
one of the turnkeys who happened to cross the hall 
in which they stood. "You are a Roman Catholic?" 
" I am, your reverence," said the turnkey respectful- 
ly. " And tell me now," continued the minister, 
"Do you pray to the blessed virgin?" "Oh, to be 
21 



318 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

sure I do, please your reverence," replied the man 
promptly. The priest's countenance and tone ex- 
pressed any thing but that gentleness with which 
Paul commanded Timothy to administer reproof, 
as he vociferated, '' You lie, you don't — you ras- 
cal!" This ended the controversy; for the poor turn- 
key sneaked off as fast as he could, observing, in a 
subdued tone, " Sure your reverence knows best."* 

We adduce this anecdote chiefly to illustrate the 
readiness with which the mind of the ignorant wor- 
shipper seizes hold of the object presented to it by 
the Romish church, and thus avoids the necessity 
which the Bible lays upon him, of seeking God, who 
is a Spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit and in 
' truth, through the alone mediation and intercession 
of Christ. The Romish controversialist may define 
what he CdMs latina, and what he calls dulia; but the 
poor mechanic or the simple child knows only one 
thing, which is* worship. This worship he pays to 
a wafer, when uplifted by the priest at what he 
calls "the altar." He pays it again before the 
image of the virgin,, so soon as the " mass" is over. 
He then returns home, and before he sleeps, he says 
his rosary, which includes a vain and senseless repe- 
tition of the Lord's Prayer ten times; but a still more 
senseless address to the virgin of fifty prayers. All 
that is really accomplished by this idle ceremony, is 
the offering an insult to God, by elevating Mary to 
greater honour than her Creator and Redeemer! But 
ask this poor deluded votary touching the difference 
between his prayers to God and to the virgin. What 
can he tell you, beyond the verbal distinction, that 
one is latria and the other didia? Practically, how- 
ever, there is no real difference; or if there be any, 
it consists in a greater degree of faith and hope, ex- 
ercised with respect to his addresses to Mary, than 
with reference to those to God or to Christ. He be- 
lieves, he is taught to believe, that Mary's ears are 
.more open to his cry, that her heart more readily 

* Protestant Magazine, vol. i. p. 150. 



IDOLATROUS WORSHIP. 319 

sympathizes with his wants' and his sorrows, than 
does the heart of his Saviour. And therefore it is 
that this idol-worship is so universally a favourite 
among these poor people. ^' The rosary," says Mr. 
O'Croly, "which should be called their devotion to 
the virgin, forms the sum total of their religious wor- 
ship." And, placed in this elevated rank, as hiding 
the Saviour almost wholly from the sinner's view, 
it can not be otherwise than dreadfully offensive to 
God, even were it less sinful and unscriptural in 
itself. But when we remember that this worship, 
which, it is thus admitted, absorbs and swallows up 
the whole soul of devotion among the people, is in 
itself altogether opposed to the word of God, to rea- 
son, and to common sense, and can rank no higher, 
with any rightly judging man, than the worship of 
Juno or of Minerva among the ancient heathen, how 
frightful does the view become! The whole church, 
falsely called " Catholic," bowing down with one 
consent before the effigy of a poor human creature! 
Men and women, called Christians, addressing, from 
the four quarters of the globe, prayers to one who 
cannot hear them ! Priests and laity, in all parts of 
the world, calling upon her as "the Queen of heaven," 
" the Empress of the universe ;" their Life, their Hope, 
"the great Mediator between Christ and sinners!" 
And as the result of the whole, that result which is 
Satan's grand aim, the Saviour disregarded; scarcely 
ever addressed in prayer, or when so addressed, in- 
sulted with the petition, that he will do so and so, in 
respect to the merits of St. Clementina, or St. Car- 
lino, or some other poor creature, whose salvation, if 
achieved at all, was solely his own work, and the re- 
ward of his own sufferings! No! it is impossible 
for any calm and unbiassed mind, to contemplate se- 
riously the habitual worship of the poor Romanists, 
without being convinced, that the worship of God 
has been superseded and pushed aside among them; 
and that it is replaced by another worship, the wor- 
ship of dead men and women, which is neither more 
nor less than idolatry. 



320 



XVII.—ROMISH DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



We have now arrived at the consideration of that 
grand corruption of the Romish church which closed 
and completed her career of apostasy; which gave 
the last and finishing stroke to the work of Satan; 
and which constituted the chief ground of contest 
throughout all the struggles of the church's regener- 
ation. The simple rite of the Lord's Supper, the 
canon and order of which is comprehended, in Scrip- 
ture, in three or four verses in each gospel, and as 
many in one of Paul's epistles, is to be considered on 
the one hand ; and on the other, that immense mass 
of ceremonial, and that alleged awful import and 
value, which is assigned in the Romish church, to 
what is termed "the Sacrifice of the Mass." 

But as this seems rather a large subject, — in what 
form or order shall we conduct the inquiry? 

Probably the natural order will be this: — first, to 
deal with the main question of Transubstantiation,or 
the alleged change in the sacramental elements; and 
then to pass on to the remaining question, the sacri- 
ficial nature of the rite, and its aHeged worth and 
power. 

Now in dealing with the first of these questions, it 
may seem that it is only necessary for anyone to take 
the plain text of either of the evangelists, and if he 
does but address himself to the investigation with an 
humble and submissive mind, he cannot be long at a 
loss as to a doctrine so clearly and so positively stated. 

But do not let us anticipate the argument, or ima- 
gine that we can dispose of a question in half a sen- 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 321 

tence, which has occupied the minds of some of our 
greatest theologians for their whole Uves. Let us 
begin the subject with method and order; and these 
will be best consulted by comparing authoritative 
statements of the opposing churches, on both sides of 
the question. 

In the first place, let us notice the solemn decree or 
canon of the Council of Trent, on this subject. " If 
any shall deny, that in the sacrament of the holy 
eucharist, there is contained, truly, really, and sub- 
stantially, the blood, together with the soul and body 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so whole Christ; but 
shall say that he is only in it in sign or figure, or 
power — let him be accursed." 

"If any shall say, that in the holy sacrament of the 
eucharist there remains the substance of bread and 
ivine, together with the body and blood of our Lord 
Jesus Christ; and shall deny that wonderful and 
remarkable conversion of the whole substance of the 
bread into the body, and of the whole substance of 
the wine into the blood, while only the appearance of 
bread and wine remain; which conversion the Cath- 
olic church most aptly styles transubstantiation; let 
him be accursed." 

Such is the doctrine of the church of Rome on this 
subject. Now let us look at the decision of the 
church of England : — 

" Transubstantiation (or the change of the sub- 
stance of the bread and wine) in the supper of the 
Lord, cannot be proved by holy writ; but is repug- 
nant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth 
the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion 
to many superstitions." 

" The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in 
the supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual man- 
ner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is 
received and eaten in the supper, is Faith."* 

Thus is the issue joined. Now let us inquire into 

* Similar is the language of the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, 
vid. Ch. xxix. Of the Lord's Supper.— [Am. Ed.] 



322 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM; 



the grounds on which the church of Rome has adopt- 
ed her view of the matter. 

We have aheady remariced that the Scriptural 
proofs on this subject are very hmited. The whole 
number of passages of Scripture which bear on this 
question are only three or four, and about twenty 
verses comprehend the whole. The Romanist, how- 
ever, asserts that his case finds its strength in its sim- 
plicity. He rests the whole on the plain words of 
the Lord himself, " Take^ eat, this is my body. 
Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood of the 
New Testament, which shall be shed for many.^^ 
(Matthew xxvi. 2Q.) 

" To construct an argument on these words," says 
Dr. Wiseman, '' is difficult; simply and solely for this 
reason^ that it is impossible to add strength or clear- 
ness to the expressions themselves. It is impossible 
for me, by any commentary or paraphrase that I can 
make, to render our Saviour's words more explicit, 
or reduce them to a form more completely expressing 
the Catholic doctrine than they do of themselves. 
' This is my body — this is my blood.' The Catho- 
lic doctrine teaches that it was Christ's body and that 
it was his blood. It would consequently appear as 
though all we had here to do, were simply and ex- 
clusively to rest at once on these words, and leave to 
others to show reason why we should depart from 
the literal interpretation which we give them."* 

Now this is certainly a very simple and easy way 
of conducting the argument. But it can hardly be 
imagined that this superficial view of the question 
will suffice, when addressed to those who have the 
Bible in their hands. Such will be sure to recollect 
the frequent use of figurative language in the New 
Testament, and the consequent uncertainty that 
must exist, until a careful consideration has been had, 
whether these words of Christ are to be taken in a 
literal or in a figurative sense. 

Dr. Wiseman had before remarked, that "the 

* Wiseman. — Lect. xv. p. 174. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. ^ 323 

ground-work of all the science of interpretation is 
exceedingly simple, if we consider the object to be 
attained. Every one will agree, that when we read 
any book, or hear any discourse, our object is to un- 
derstand what was passing in the author's mind 
when he wrote or spoke those passages, — that is to 
say, what was the meaning he himself wished to give 
to the expressions he then wrote or uttered."* Now 
the best way of ascertaining this point, must be, to 
examine carefully the other writings or sayings of 
the same author, and thus to gain an insight into his 
mode of expressing his thoughts. 

With this view let us take the simplest possible 
course: let us open the New Testament at its very 
commencement, and pass our eye over the discourses 
of Christ; and endeavour to learn what were the 
prominent features of his ordinary style or mode of 
expression. 

We open at Matthew, but we see nothing what- 
ever of our Saviour's words in either of the first four 
chapters. At the fifth chapter Jesus begins to speak. 

In the 13th verse, Christ tells his disciples that they 
are "the salt of the earth." In the 14th, that they 
are "the light of the world." And in the 15th and 
16th, the same figure is maintained. 

In the next chapter, and at the 20th verse, we are 
there exhorted to "lay up treasures in heaven," — 
which of course is a figure. 

In the 7th chapter, at verse 6, we are taught not to 
"cast pearls before swine," which, literally, no man 
would ever think of doing. At the 13th verse, we are 
exhorted to "enter in at the strait gate,^^ which is 
clearly another figure. In the 15th, the false pro- 
phets are said to come " in sheep's clothing, but in- 
wardly to be ravening wolves.'' We then pass on to 
chapter viii. where, at the 23d verse, Christ tells one 
of his disciples to " let the dead bury their dead," 
which, taken literally, would be a mere absurdity. 
In the ninth chapter he calls himself^" (verse 15.) a 

* Wiseman. — Lect. xiv. p. 137. 



324 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

"bridegroom," and his disciples "children of the 
bridechan:iber." And at the 37th and 38th verses, he 
speaks of the " harvest^^^ and of " labourers in the 
harvest," with reference to the preaching of the gos- 
pel. In the tenth chapter he sends forth his disciples, 
and tells them to " go unto the lost sheep of the house 
of Israel." 

But we need scarcely proceed further. It is al- 
ready sufficiently clear that as Jesus "spake always 
unto the multitude in parables," «o to his own disci- 
ples he constantly used figurative language. So con- 
stantly, indeed, that wherever we have found his 
words, in all these chapters, we have immediately 
lighted upon a figure. Now let us ask, whether it 
is a just or reasonable way of treating the subject, 
to take up an isolated expression of our Lord's, after 
seeing that he never speaks without using figurative 
language, and to demand, as a matter of course, that 
that isolated expression shall instantly and implicitly 
be taken in its literal sense? 

Assuredly not. The fact being beyond dispute, 
that our Lord was in the habit of continually using 
figures, it is surely only reasonable, to suspend our 
interpretation for a moment, until we can gather, 
from the chief features of the case, whether the pas- 
sage in question ought to be taken literally or figu- 
ratively. 

We conclude, then, that the common argument of 
the Romanists, that the bread in the Lord's Supper 
must be actually our Lord's flesh, merely because he 
himself said, " This is my body,^^ is of no force or 
value. 

We proceed, then, to apply to the passage in ques- 
tion, the usual test of a comparison with like passages. 
This is, beyond doubt, the surest way of discovering 
the sense in which our Lord used these words. 

Now there is nothing more clear, or better known 
to a student of the Bible, than the constant use of 
figurative language implying hunger and thirst, food 
and water, when nothing else than spiritual wants 
and spiritual supplies are really intended. The whole 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 325 

Scripture abounds wilh such passages. " Thy words 
are sweeter than honey and the honey comb.^^ (Ps. 
xviii. 2.) " Thy ivords ivere found and 1 did eat 
themJ^ (Jer. xv. 16.) " They shall eat of the fruit 
of their own way?^ (Prov. i. 31.) " The soul of the 
transgressors shall eat violence.'^ (Prov. xiii. 2,) 
" Come ye, buy and eat, yea come, buy wine and 
milk without money and without priceV (Isaiah 
Iv. 1.) ** They did all eat the same spiritual meat ; 
and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they 
drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, 
and that Rock was Christ. '' (1 Cor. x. 3.) " Thou 
shalt make them drink of the rivers of thy pleasures. ^^ 
(Psahn xxxvi. 8.) ""Are ye able to drink of the cup 
that I shall drink of? (Matt. xx. 23.) ''If thou 
knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to 
thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of 
him, and he would have given thee living water. ^^ 
(John iv. 10.) " I am the bread of life: he that com- 
eth to me shall never hunger: and he that believeth 
on me shall never thirst,'^ (John vi. 35.) Now with 
these passages before us, it seems quite impossible to 
take for granted, as the Romanists require us to do, 
that when the disciples heard our Lord say, " This 
cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed 
for you,^^ (Luke xxii. 20.) they must necessarily have 
understood him in the naked and literal sense, and 
must have believed that it was a real stream from his 
veins that they were drinking! It is, we repeat, im- 
possible to imagine for a moment that such was their 
impression of the meaning of his words, or that they 
could believe that it was human blood that they were 
drinking, without uttering exclamations of horror 
and astonishment. 

But we sometimes hear a protest against any at- 
tempt to lower this great mystery to human appre- 
hensions, or any application of arbitrary rules of what 
tve may think probable, or possible, or reasonable, as 
a criterion of the real facts! In answer to which, we 
observe that we have not proposed any thing of the 
kind. We are yet on the threshold of the argument, 



326 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

and have not yet proceeded further than the question, 
In what sense are our Lord's words, in the institution 
of the sacrament, to be taken? Dr. Wiseman himself 
declares the best rule of interpretation to be the 
ascertaining in what sense the language in question 
must have been understood by those to whom it was 
addressed. We have followed this method, and have 
shown, that the use of figurative language, applying 
to spiritual things the terms commonly used for hun- 
ger and thirst, food and water, was general with the 
sacred writers, and more especially, was repeatedly 
adopted by our Lord himself. With this fact before 
us, and with the certainty, also, that so appalling a 
command as that of eating, really and literally, human 
flesh and blood, could not have failed to call forth 
expressions of horror from the disciples — of which 
we hear not one syllable, — we feel that Dr. Wise- 
man's own canon conducts us inevitably to the con- 
clusion, that when the disciples heard these words, 
they could, and did apply no other meaning to them 
than that to which they had been accustomed, namely, 
a figurative and symbolical one. 

Thus much of the supposed necessity of accepting 
our Lord's words in a simple and literal sense. But 
do the other Scriptures which touch upon this subject, 
throw no additional light upon the question ? 

Assuredly they do. The Romanist may select a 
single passage, and pride himself on his readiness 
and willingness to submit his mind wholly to its 
literal sense; but we find no difficulty in adducing a 
passage of equal clearness, the whole force of which 
is undeniably on our side. If the words, " Take, eaty 
this is my body,''^ may seem at first sight to support 
the view of the church of Rome, the plain declarations 
of Paul go to establish, with far less doubt, the Pro- 
testant doctrine of a spiritual participation only. His 
words are, " */ls oft as ye eat this bread and drink 
this CUP, ye do show the Lord'^s death till he come.^^ 
(I Cor. xi. 26.) Here is a distinct declaration that 
the bread, ivhen eaten, is still bread; and yet the 
Council of Trent, in the face of this plain text, has 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



327 



dared to decree, that "if any shall say that in the 
eucharist there remains the substance of bread and 
wine, together with the body and blood, let him be 
accursedP^ 

Now not only once, but three times in as many 
verses, does Paul expressly call the bread, — not be- 
fore consecration merely, — but at the time of eating, 
still bread; in what way, then, did the framers of the 
Trent decree propose to exempt the apostle from their 
deliberate anathema? 

Dr. Wiseman attempts to meet this objection. He 
refers to the case of the blind man restored to sight, 
(John ix.) who, after his recovery is still called, " the 
blind man ;" to the rod of Moses, which, after it was 
changed into a serpent, is still called a rod; and to 
the water at the marriage feast, which is called " the 
water that was made wine." From these cases he 
argues that it is by no means uncommon to find a 
thing upon which a change has been wrought, still 
called by its former name. Hence it follows, in his 
opinion, that no stress ought to be laid upon the 
trivial circumstance of Paul's calling that bread after 
consecration, which had been bread just before. 

But none of these instances will bear out his infer- 
ence, that things are sometimes called by a false name. 
The rod of Moses, after it was changed into a serpent, 
was reconverted into its former condition, and is right- 
ly spoken of as a rod. The changed liquid at the 
marriage-feast is most accurately called '•^ the water 
that was made wine.^^ And in like manner the blind 
man is first called, (John ix. 13.) ^' him that afore- 
time was blind^^^ and then, in a few lines after, for 
brevity, "the blind man." In each case there is 
nothing doubtful, nothing from which any occasion 
of mistake can possibly flow. And yet from these 
instances we are required to infer, that Paul might 
easily be guilty of calling that, repeatedly, bread, 
and without any explanation of reservation, — of 
which it is declared by the Trentine council, to be 
the highest heresy to affirm that any substance of 
bread remains in it. This argument of Dr. Wiseman's 



328 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

is a most presumptuous and criminal one; for if it 
could be admitted, the result would be, that the plain- 
est declarations of Scripture would possess no sort of 
weight or authority, but all would be uncertain and 
undefined. 

Here, then, we may consider the argument from 
Scripture as concluded. So entirely different a view 
do the sacred writers take of this subject, from that 
of the Romanists, that a matter which is almost the 
sun and centre of the Romish system, the chief glory 
of their ritual, and the most essential point in their 
belief, occupies, in all the writings of the apostles and 
evangelists, merely some twenty or thirty lines. The 
strength of the Romish argument lies in one short 
sentence, " This is my body,''^ which, though sur- 
rounded by figurative expressions, it is insisted must 
be taken literally. On our side, we adduce Paul's 
language, " *ds often as ye eat this bread ;" and here 
though nothing can be clearer or more explicit, and 
though thrice repeated, we are immediately told that 
the words must not be taken literally. Thus is Scrip- 
ture itself twisted and distorted, just as it suits the 
purpose of the "infallible church.'^ 

We may now proceed to say something on the na- 
ture and tendency of the doctrine propounded by the 
church of Rome. We shall not offend the timid mind 
by starting any doubts as to the possibility or impossi- 
bility, the absurdity or reasonableness, of the doctrine 
of transubstantiation; but there are several theological 
considerations which may be adduced against its 
reception, without entering upon arguments which 
might seem to savour too much of rationalism. 

Let us consider, first, then, the prodigious nature of 
that thing which we are called on to believe. It has 
been rightly named, if true, "the greatest miracle of 
omnipotence." 

"Our Lord," says one writer, "according to this 
doctrine, is not only whole in the whole, but also 
whole in every part. The whole God and man is 
comprehended in every crumb of the bread, and in 
every drop of the wine. He is entire in the bread, 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 329 

and entire in the wine, and in every particle of each 
element. He is entire without division, in countless 
hosts and numberless altars. He is entire in heaven, 
and at the same time entire on the earth. The whole 
is equal to a part, and a part equal to the whole. 
The same substance may, at the same time, be in many 
places, and many substances in the same place.'' 
" The species exists without a subject. The substance 
is transformed into flesh and blood, while the acci- 
dents, such as colour, taste, touch, smell, and quantity, 
still remain. The taste and smell continue without 
any'^thing tasted or smelled. Colour remains; but 
nothing to which it belongs, and, of course, is the ex- 
ternal show ofnonenity. Quantity is only the hollow 
shadow of emptiness. But these appearances, not- 
withstanding their want of substance, can, it seems, be 
eaten, and afford sustenance to man and nourish the 
human body. 

"Such is the usual outline of transubstantiation. 
The absurdity resembles the production of some sati- 
rist, who wished to ridicule the mystery, or some vis- 
ionary, who had laboured to bring forth nonsense. 
A person feels humbled in having to oppose such in- 
consistency, and scarcely knows whether to weep 
over the imbecility of his own species, or to vent his 
bursting indignation against the impostors, who, lost 
to all sense of shame, obtruded this mass of contra- 
dictions on man. History, in all its ample folios, dis- 
plays, in the deceiving and the deceived, no equal 
instance of assurance and credulity.''* 

Observe, too, the enormous power thus assumed to 
exist in every priest. "The hands of the pontiff"," 
said Urban in a Roman council, "are raised to an 
eminence granted to none of the angels, of creating 
God the Creator of all things, and of offering him 
up for the salvation of the whole world." "He that 
created me," says Cardinal Biel, "gave me, if it be 
lawful to tell, power to create himself" 

Once more, remark the peculiarity of this alleged 

* Edgar's Variations of Popery, p. 346, 347. 



330 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

miracle, which distinguishes it from all others, that 
instead of appealing, as they do, to the senses of men, 
it sets them wholly at nought, and demands our im- 
plicit belief of a fact which our own sight and touch 
assure us to be utterly untrue. 

But we shall be told that we are now wandering 
into the rationalist difficulties, and that if this kind of 
reasoning is allowed, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and 
in fact every mystery in the Bible, must be surren- 
dered; for none of these can be brought down to the 
level of mere human reason, or made evident to the 
perception of the senses. 

This objection, however, will only be made by 
those who overlook an important distinction. We 
propose not to require that either this or any other 
mystery should be brought strictly within the com- 
pass of the human understanding. We only wish 
to discriminate between things that differ, and to 
guard against the inference, that because in things 
which are above the province of reason, the declara- 
tions of Scripture must be humbly received: there- 
fore in a case in which the sense of Scripture is dis- 
puted and disputable, we are at once to submit to a 
proposition which is not merely above, but clearly 
contrary to our reason and to the evidence of our 
senses. 

This distinction is most important. We find it re- 
peatedly and most explicitly declared in Scripture, 
that the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy 
Ghost God; and yet there is but one God. Now we 
know that three men cannot be one man; but we 
have no right to argue from that which we do know 
of finite beings, that which we cannot know of in- 
finite. The matter is above our reason's province; 
but it is not contrary to it. To refuse, therefore, to 
believe God's own testimony as to his own mode of 
existence, merely because it is too high for our com- 
prehension, would be mere arrogant presumption 
and Ignorant conceit. It would be not a whit more 
rational, whatever we might choose to call it, than 
the determination of a rustic not to believe that the 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 33 1 

earth was round, because he saw a flat surface' before 
him; nor to admit its motion round the sun, because 
he supposed he saw the sun, day by day, move round 
it. In all these cases scepticism is not the right ex- 
ercise of reason, but tlie mere ebullition of ignorant 
pride. 

But in the matter of the alleged miracle of transub- 
stantiation, the case is wholly different. " Many sub- 
jects," says an acute writer, " such as the Trinity and 
the Incarnation, are beyond the grasp of our bodily 
senses, and indeed of human reason. These are to 
be judged of by the testimony of Revelation. But 
bread and wine are material substances, and level 
with the view of our organs of perception. The 
sacramental elements can be seen, smelled, touched, 
and tasted. Our external organs, say the advocates 
of transubstantiation, are in this institution, deceived, 
in all men, at all times, and on all occasions."* 

"The patrons of this dogma," continues the same 
writer, " driven from all other positions, have recourse 
to the omnipotence of God. Almighty power is a very 
convenient resource; but incomprehensibility is to be 
distinguished from impossibility, and mystery from 
contradiction. God works many things incompre- 
hensible to man, but nothing which in itself is contra- 
dictory. Omnipotence extends only to possibility, 
and not to inconsistency; to things above, not con- 
trary to reason." 

" Some miracles," says another writer, " are evi- 
dent to sense; some are not evident to sense; but this 
is absolutely contrary to sense; audit implies, that 
our senses may be so far deceived as to destroy all 
dependence on them." " It would follow, that we 
could judge of nothing by our senses; and that he 
who swears to the identity of any object, runs the 
risk of perjury. Either, then, our senses, aided by 
each other, are sufficient for the examination of every 
object of sense, or they are not. If they are sufficient, 
transubstantiation is false. If they are not sufficient, 

* Edgar's Variations, p. 383. 



332 



ESSAYS ON eomanism: 



there is an end at once of evidence and of argu- 
ment." 

This alleged miracle, then, is prodigious in its na- 
ture, beyond all example: it is still more extraordi- 
nary as being performable by all priests, of all de- 
scription and character, and in thousands of places at 
the same time; and it is further incredible, as being 
not merely above the perception of our senses and 
our reason, but absolutely contrary, and opposed to 
all such evidence. But we come now to observe, 
that this most wonderful of all wonders, this most mi- 
raculous of all miracles, is actually performed, and 
that not once, but millions of times, in fact perpetu- 
sil'y? for no imaginable end or object whatever. 
This is the most startling feature of the whole affair. 

But here the Romanist starts back, and protests 
that we ard going quite too far! It is the next step, 
he tells us, to blasphemy, to assert that God does any 
thing in vain. And in this case our allegation is 
quite in the teeth of our Lord's own words, " The 
bread that I will give is my fleshy which I will give 
for the life of the world.^^ (John vi. 51.) 

But again we are misrepresented. We would not 
harbour, even for an instant, the thought, that God 
ever works without necessity or without result. But 
the question we are now considering is, whether He 
really does, or has ever promised to do, this thing 
which the Romanist ascribes to him. It is alleged, 
that the material substance, bread, is changed, in 
every Eucharist, into another substance, flesh. We 
can discern no such change with our bodily eyes; 
but we are referred to one passage of Scripture, 
(Matt. xxvi. 26.) while we find a directly opposite 
sense in another (1 Cor. xi. 2Q). Our inquiry, there- 
fore, is, which of these two senses is the true one. 
And into this inquiry we bring the observation, that 
an actual change of the one substance, bread, into 
the other substance, flesh, can hardly be meant in 
any passage of Scripture, inasmuch as this would be 
a most extraordinary miracle performed without any 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 333 

end or object whatever. We do not, therefore, sup- 
pose that God does any thing in vain; on the con- 
trary, we are contending that no such miracle as is 
alleged, is in fact wrought, chiefly because if so 
wrought, it would be altogether in vain, without 
end, and without utility. 

But we are told, that nothing can be more opposed 
to the truth. So far from being useless or unproduc- 
tive, this great truth is the very sun and centre of the 
Catholic system. " You have seen,^' says Dr. Wise- 
man, ''how this most adorable sacrament contains the 
real body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ, who is consequently therein present, so as to 
be the real food of the soul; and necessarily the 
source and means of conveying to it that grace 
whereof he is the author." And thus is supplied, 
" the want felt by the human soul, of some regene- 
rating, invigorating principle, of some hving and 
quickening food, fraught with grace from above, 
which could bring it into communion with the God 
that gave it.'' * How, then, we are asked, can we 
venture to call this great doctrine a useless and un- 
productive fancy ! 

Let us, however, calmly consider this matter. In 
the passages just quoted from Dr. Wiseman, the real 
end and object of the sacrament is expressly admitted. 
It is " to be the food of the soul; to convey to it grace; 
to apply to the soul a regenerating, invigorating 
principle,^^ by means of " living and quickening food, 
fraught with grace from above.'' Now if we reflect 
for a moment on the real meaning of these expres- 
sions, they must convey to the mind a conviction of 
the grossness and unsoundness of the Romish theory. 

The object is, to feed, to invigorate, to enliven the 
soul. We are compelled, by the gross and unspiritual 
nature of the dogma, to go into matters on which we 
would gladly be excused touching. But the theory 
is, that by the reception of a certain kind of material 
food into the bodily system, the soul is in some way 

* Wiseman, Lecture xvi. p. 235, 236. 
22 



334 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

fed and invigorated. We must ask, then, when it 
was discovered that any connection existed between 
the soul and the stomach; or how it ever occurred to 
any one to deal with our spiritual part through the 
medium of our digestive organs? 

But we shall be told, that we are now absolutely 
attacking the sacrament itself! We shall be reminded, 
that it was our Lord's own command, to take bread 
as his body, and wine as his blood; and it will be 
asked, whether we mean to call an ordinance so insti- 
tuted a vain or useless ceremony? 

But we have not uttered one word against the or- 
dinance; and if our expressions offend, we will merely 
repeat the words of Augustine: "Why do you pre- 
pare your teeth and your stomach? Believe only, 
and you will have eaten."* 

It is absolutely necessary, if we would understand 
this question, to examine it very closely. It is easy 
enough, we grant, to catch up some glowing passage 
from one of the early fathers, such as Dr. Wiseman 
has adduced, from Gregory of Nyssa: "And there- 
fore does the divine word commix itself with the weak 
nature of man, that, by partaking of the divinity, our 
humanity may be exalted. '^t But when such pas- 
sages as these have been applaudingly quoted, and 
eagerly received, the question yet remains, Does either 
he who quotes them or he who receives them, really 
attach any definite or intelligible meaning to these 
high sounding phrases? 

One grand error pervades all these statements — 
namely, a supposition that, by some means or other, 
which no one can understand or explain, a connection 
exists between the stomach and the soul! Our Lord 
himself had expressly warned his disciples against this 
error, telling them that "' The Spirit it is that quick- 
eneth, the flesh profit eth nothing f but this caution 
is wholly disregarded by the Romish writers on this 
subject. They persevere in contending, equally 
against our Lord's plain deck rations, and against the 

* In JoFiannis Evang-. c. 6. Tract. 25. 
t Wiseman. Lect. xvi. p. 227. 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 335 

dictates of common sense, that it is possible that by 
some material substance eaten, swallowed, and digest- 
ed, a man's heart may be cleansed, his soul renewed 
to holiness, and his spirit quickened in the divine life! 
Would there be any thing more contrary to reason in 
believing it possible to teach a youth arithmetic by a 
lotion poured into his ears, or the art of painting by 
an eye-water? 

If we are asked, whether we mean to go the length 
of asserting that it is not in God's power, if he so 
pleases, to act upon the soul through the medium of 
the internal organs of the body? we answer, that we 
certainly do not propose to place any limits to the 
divine power in this matter; but that the question 
brings us to the very point which we wish now to 
press upon the attention. It is suggested, that it may 
be God's will to act upon the soul through this medi- 
um. We believe, and imagine that we could easily 
show, that there is abundant evidence of his inten- 
tions being totally different; and that the design of this 
sacrament was,by periodically and frequently placing 
before our bodily eyes, signs and emblems of Christ's 
broken body and shed blood, to help our souls to go 
out towards him in frequent acts of faith in his atone- 
ment, and thus to become more and more united to 
him by the attachments of love and gratitude. But 
suppose we admit for a moment the supposition, that 
the very substance swallowed and digested is meant 
to have, through the bodily organs, a beneficial ope- 
ration on the soul, it must at least be admitted, that 
this beneficial operation is altogether supernatural and 
miraculous. 

This being granted, as it must be, we come to the 
next question, which is this, — Bread, eaten and di- 
gested, has no sort of effect upon the soul, in the or- 
dinary course of nature. Flesh, whether of man or 
of beast, is equally without power in this respect. It 
will not be supposed that, had Christ's human body 
been actually resigned to be eaten by the disciples, in- 
stead of being rapt into heaven, it cannot be supposed, 
we repeat, that that human body, irrespective of all 



336 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



supernatural influence, would have exerted any bene- 
ficial influence upon their souls through that eating. 
In fact, no kind of substance, be it what it may, can 
operate through the stomach upon the soul, except by 
a direct miracle. This all must admit. 

We proceed, therefore, to contend, that the alleged 
spiritual influence being wholly miraculous; and the 
substance eaten being a mere vehicle, having no ne- 
cessary or natural connection with the miracle to be 
performed, — it follows plainly that it must be wholly 
immaterial of what that vehicle consisted; and that 
whether it were mere bread, used as a symbol of 
Christ's broken body, or, by some miraculous increase 
and multiplication, the very body itself, the spiritual 
benefit, the grand thing to be considered, must remain 
the same. Hence it clearly follows, that this alleged 
miraculous transubstantiation,by which thousands of 
wafers are said to be changed every Sunday, into 
thousands of Christ's entire body, is wholly unneces- 
sary, without object, and without utility! 

To put the argument in another light; — as when 
Christ, on one occasion, chose to remove blindness 
by the application of clay, formed by spitting upon 
the earth; he might, if he had chosen, have transub- 
stantiated that clay into the finest oil. But neither 
the oil nor the clay could cure the want of eyesight, 
without the exertion of his almighty power. Each 
must remain a mere vehicle, an instrument, arbitrarily 
selected by Him who could work with equal ease by 
any means he chose, or without the intervention of 
means at all. In this case he determined, for wise 
ends, known only to himself, to use the visible me- 
dium of clay, a vehicle as simple as the bread in the 
last supper. And just as the clay and the oil were 
alike without virtue in themselves, in the one case, 
so are the bread and the flesh in the other. The 
whole efficacy, in each case, depends entirely on the 
virtue supernaturally conveyed. And just as, in the 
one case, Christ did not change the clay into a medi- 
cinal drug, so, in the other, he does not change the 
bread into the flesh. In one case, the clay was just 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



337 



as good a vehicle of miraculous power as oil would 
have been; in the other, bread is as good a vehicle 
as flesh; and therefore a miracle which, on the one 
hand, we cannot perceive, and which, on the other, 
would answer no assignable end, must be rejected by 
us until some clear scriptural proof can be adduced 
in its support. 

Nor can we be unconscious of the fact, that even 
the Romish priest himself must be troubled, at times, 
with doubts on this subject. The anecdote is a well- 
known one, of a lady who, having some suspicions 
of the soundness of the Romish creed, addressed a 
priest one day in the following tenor: "You have 
now consecrated the bread and the wine; and you 
are sure that the substance of the bread is converted 
into our Lord's body, and the substance of the wine 
into his blood .^'^ " Certainly," was the reply. "No- 
thing, then, remains, except the appearances of bread 
and wine ; the former substances having been entirely 
converted into a totally different thing?" "Of that 
there can be no doubt." " I am glad of that," was 
her reply, " for before I gave you the wine, I mingled 
with it an infusion of a tasteless, but most deadly 
poison." The story goes on to say, that the priest 
dared not prove his own belief in the doctrine he 
had enunciated, by drinking that which he had just 
declared to be nothing else than the blood of Christ. 

Now, it matters little whether this story be a fiction 
or a narrative of a real occurrence. The difficulty 
which it presents, in the embracing the Romish doc- 
trine, is just the same, and can only be removed by a 
prompt submission to that test from which the priest 
is said to have shrunk. Let the same difficulty be 
stated in another form. Suppose that a priest were 
to receive information, that one of the journeymen 
employed in the manufacture of his wafers, harassed 
with doubts as to this disputed doctrine, had deter- 
mined, for his own satisfaction, to try the question in 
this practical way, and had mingled some noxious or 
poisonous ingredients in the wafers he was about to 
use. Suppose, too, that this circumstance only came 



338 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



to the priest's knowledge after he had duly conse- 
crated the wafer, elevated it to God as the actual 
body of his Son, and was on the point of taking it 
himself, and of distributing it to the congregation: 
must we not doubt, whether his own belief in the 
doctrine of his church would stand this trial? Could 
he quietly proceed in the service, firmly reposing in 
the assurance that " the whole substance of the bread 
had been converted" into a different substance, and 
that merely the appearance of it remained? 

If this question cannot be answered in the affirma- 
tive, it is thereby tacitly admitted that the priests do, 
in fact, demand of their people an universal and entire 
belief in a miraculous change, the truth of which they 
find it impossible to realize in their own minds. 

There is one other remark which demands consid- 
eration: Dr. Wiseman closes his review of the ques- 
tion, by charging upon Protestants " the neglect of a 
sovereign command, a neglect to which is attached a 
fearful penalty, * Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of 
man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.^^^ 
"Now he here clearly implies, that to take this sacra- 
ment rightly, the miracle of transubstantiation hav- 
ing been duly performed, is to " eat the flesh of the 
Son of man," and thus "to have life;" while to be 
without it, is to be without Christ. 

The Romanist will admit that he does not imagine 
that Christ condescends to pass into every eucharistic 
sacrifice, without thereby conveying any certain bene- 
fit. He entertains no doubt that he who partakes of 
that awful sacrifice, is a partaker of Christ, and is 
mystically joined to him. 

Such an one, then, is, at least for the time, in a 
state of safety, while all who are destitute of this 
great gift, are in a state of reprobation! Now let us 
remark, in disproof of this notion, the striking fact, 
that Judas, the betrayer of Christ, was one of those 
who took from the Saviour's own hand the first eu- 
charist over which the Lord himself had just pro- 
nounced the awful words, '^Take, eat, this is my 
body.^^ Yet Judas, only a few hours before, had 



TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 



339 



covenanted to betray Christ, and within a few hours 
after, he actually perpetrated that crime ! Nay, he 
must have actually closed his awful career by an act 
of desperate suicide, while the body of his Lord was 
still one with his body, — according to the Romish 
theory, in actual physical union. What benefit, then, 
had his soul received by that eating? Again, the 
dying thief, we know, had never participated in this 
or any other sacrament; yet he was a saved man, 
and was removed from the cross to paradise, — into 
the immediate presence of his Saviour, — unbaptized, 
unanointed, without having eaten of this bread, or 
drunk of this cup, which is made, in the Romish 
church, the very passport of salvation ! 

The difference must surely have been, that the one 
merely in form and without any faith, or spiritual 
intention, ate the bread and drank the cup, — while 
the other, wanting the external observance, exer- 
cised that spiritual affiance which is the essence of 
the real communion. Faith, clearly, in the one, and 
the absence of it in the other, constituted the grand 
difference; as Augustine's words, which we have 
already quoted, declare. "Why do you prepare,'* 
says he, "your teeth and your stomach? Believe 
only, and you will have eaten." And in strict ac- 
cordance with this statement, are the decisions of the 
English church. " To such," says the xxviii/A Ar- 
ticle, " as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive 
the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of 
the body of Christ; and the cup of blessing a par- 
taking of the blood of Christ."* But "the body of 
Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only 
after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the 
mean whereby it is so received and eaten in the Sup- 
per, is Faith." Therefore, "such as be void of a 
lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly 
press with their teeth, as Augustine saith, the sacra- 
ment of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise 

* To the same purport is the Westminster Confession. See Chap. 
XXIX. Sec. VII. and VIII.— [Am. Ed.] 



340 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their con- 
demnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of 
so great a thing." 

Here, then, Ues the distinction between the Protes- 
tant and the Romish doctrines. We hold, that after 
a heavenly and spiritual manner, the body and blood 
of Christ are received by the real Christian in the 
sacrament, through the medium of faith. But we 
deny that the ungodly receive Christ in any wise in 
that sacrament. Consequently we deny that when 
the consecrated bread and wine lie upon the table, 
there exists, under the appearance of bread, the actual 
body and blood of Christ. The Romish church, on 
the other hand, declares every one "accursed," who 
denies that a whole and entire Christ is contained in 
every particle of what appears to be bread, and also 
in every particle of what appears to be wine. In 
this view, both Judas and every other traitor to Christ 
who has partaken of this sacrament since his time, 
must have actually received Christ himself, as cer- 
tainly as the thief on the cross was left without the 
power of receiving him. We leave this reflection on 
the reader's mind, and shall now proceed to consider 
the testimony of the Fathers. 

Here the Romanist imagines his great strength to 
lie. He tells us, that in almost every period of the 
church, he finds the most illustrious witnesses, who 
testify that in successive ages this great doctrine was 
held as firmly by the universal church, as it is now 
by those who remain in the communion of the sover- 
eign pontiff. Dr. Wiseman refers to the writings of 
Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, 
Irenaeus, Augustine, Isaac of Antioch, and Amphilo- 
chius, and he might have quoted many others, had 
his space allowed. We have no desire to deny or 
evade this fact; for although they make some show 
upon paper, the least examination shows these quo- 
tations to be quite beside the argument. Scarcely any 
of them do more than merely paraphrase or vary our 
Lord's own expression, " Take, eat, this is my 
body.^' When, therefore, we have satisfied ourselves 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



341 



that our Lord's own words were merely figurative, 
what difficulty can we find in classing the glowing 
language of the Fathers under the same head? 

In fact, so overladen with figure and hyperbole did 
the theology of the Fathers become, that it is almost 
wonderful that we can at all see our way through the 
mazes of their exaggerations. A careful examina- 
tion, however, of their usual modes of expression, will 
soon remove all danger of a too literal interpretation 
of their terms. 

Cyril, for instance, who is greatly relied upon as a 
witness for transubstantiation, thus speaks of another 
rite. He represents "the oil of baptism, after conse- 
cration, not as mere oil, but as the grace of Jesus: as 
the bread is not mere bread, but the body of our 
Lord.''* Thus we have transubstantiated oil, as well 
as transubstantiated bread and wine! 

Many of the Fathers declare the water of baptism 
to be Christ's blood. Chrysostom describes the bap- 
tized as "clothed in purple garments dyed in the 
Lord's blood. "t Jerome describes Christ as saying to 
all Christians, "Ye are baptized in my blood. "| Au- 
gustine represents the faithful "as participating in our 
Lord's flesh and blood in baptism. "§ 

A sort of transubstantiation is also described as 
taking place in men themselves at baptism. "I 
am changed," says Gregory, "into Christ in bap- 
tism. "|| "The faithful," says Bede, "are transformed 
into our Lord's members, and become his body." 
"Man, in baptism/' says Leo, "is made the body of 
Christ." Now this sort of language, which abounds 
throughout the writings of the Fathers, should render 
us cautious how we catch at their exaggerated phrases, 
and turn them into theological dogmas. Happily, 
however, in the present case, we have not only reflex 
and inferential evidence, but the most express declar- 
ations, in their own writings, that in calling the con- 

» Chrysost 2, 226, ad ilium. Gate. 1. t Cyril, 292. 

X Jerom. 3, 16, in Isai. i. § August. Tract. 11. 

II Gregory. Orat. 40. 



342 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



secrated elements "the body and blood of Christ," 
they meant nothing approaching to transubstantia- 
tion. Augustine says, "Christ delivered to his dis- 
ciples the figure of his body and blood." (Enarrat. 
in Psal. iii. ) He adds, that "he who does not abide 
in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, un- 
doubtedly neither eats his flesh nor drinks his 
bhod.^' (In Joh. E\r. c. vi. Tract, xxvi.) Chrysos- 
tom asks, "If Jesus did not die, of what are the things 
which we perform, the symbols ?'' (Serm. on Matt.) 
He also says, that the sacrament "is esteemed worthy 
to be called the Lord's body, although the nature of 
thehreadremaineth init,'''' Origen asks, "If Christ 
had neither flesh or blood, as some heretics affirm, of 
what body and what blood are the bread and cup 
which he delivered the images? By these symbols 
he commended his memory to his disciples." (Dial, 
iii. cont. Marcion.) Clemens Alexandrinus says, 
^'Such food (for faith) our Lord elsewhere sets forth 
in the gospel of John by symbols, saying, "Eat my 
flesh, and drink my blood." (Prsed. c. 6. 1. 1. p. 100.) 
Cyril of Jerusalem says, "In the type of the bread is 
given to you the body, and in the type of the wine 
the blood." (Cat. Myst. iv. 1. p. 292.) Eusebius of 
Cesarea, says, "Christ appointed them to use bread 
as a symbol of his own body." (Dem. Evan. lib. 8. 
c. 1.) TertuUian speaks of "the bread by which 
Chxisi represents his body." (Adv. Marcion. lib. 1. 
p. 372.) Ambrose says, "You receive the sacrament 
as a similitude; it is the figure of the body and blood 
of the Lord. You drink the likeness of his precious 
blood." (De Sacram. lib. iv. c. 4.) Cyprian says, 
" The blood of Christ is shown by the wine." (Cecil, 
patri. epis. Q5, p. 153,) and pope Gelasius (a. d. 492,) 
plainly declares that ^'ihQ substance or nature of the 
bread and wine ceases not to exist, and assuredly the 
image and similitude of the body and blood of Christ 
are celebrated in these mysteries." (Contra Eutychen.) 
Here are ten of the leading fathers of the church, 
and if time permitted we might refer to forty more, 



TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 



343 



who all explicitly tell us, that in calling the sacramen- 
tal elements the body and blood of Christ, they 
mean no more than they apprehend Christ himself to 
have meant, namely, that the bread and wine were 
the types, the symbols, the figures, the representa- 
tions, of his body and blood; but that they conti- 
nued to be bread and wine still. And so much for 
all the boasted evidence from antiquity, in favour of 
Transubstantiation. 



344 



XVIII.— ROMISH DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES. 



THE MASS. 



Having now considered, at some length, the doctrine 
of transubstantiation, the subject which comes next 
in order, in the present discussion, is its twin corrup- 
tion, The Mass. 

These two great inventions of the church of Rome, 
may, indeed, be considered rather as two branches of 
the same subject. Transubstantiation declares that 
" the bread which we hreak^"* is not only " the com- 
munion of the body of Christ ^^"^ but is that very ma- 
terial body itself! The Mass goes one step further, 
and tells us that the same body, thus miraculously 
and multitudinously and perpetually reproduced, is 
not so reproduced for our own comfort and edifica- 
tion merely, but for the purpose of being offered up 
daily, in every communion, to God the Father, as a 
propitiatory sacrifice for sin. Each of these dogmas 
is ahke in plain opposition to the text of Scripture, 
and to the dictates of common sense. Of the first 
we have already treated: let us now pass on to the 
second. 

What is called in the Romish churcli ^'The Mass," 
is among all Protestants called "the communion of 
Christ's body and blood."" The institution of this ser- 
vice or celebration is plainly and explicitly describ- 
ed in Scripture; — let us, then, first turn to that narra- 
tive. 

Matthew, the first evangelist, informs us, that at 
or after our Lord's passover, " Jesus took bread, and 
blessed it, and brake, and gave it to the disciples, 
and said, Take, eat; this is my body. Jind he took 



THE MASS. 345 

the Clip, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, say- 
ing, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the 
Neiv Testament, which is shed for many for the re- 
mission of sins P (ch. xxvi. 26 — 28.) Mark repeats 
the fact in almost the very same words. Luke says, 
" And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, 
and gave unto them, saying. This is my body which 
is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. 
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup 
is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for 
you.^^ (ch. xxii. 12 — 20.) John, the beloved disciple, 
though present at the institution, does not even record 
the fact in his gospel. But Paul, writing to the Co- 
rinthian church, and giving them large instructions as 
to their religious observances, says, ^' I have received 
of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you : 
That the Lord Jesus, the same night i?i which he 
was betrayed, took bread: and ivhen he had given 
thanks, he broke it and said. Take, eat: this is m,y 
body, which is broken for you: this do in remem- 
brance of me. Jifter the same manner also he took 
the cup, when he had supped, saying. This cup is the 
New Testament in my blood : this do ye, as oft as 
ye drink it, i?i remembrance of me. For as often as 
ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the 
Lord's death till he come.''' (1 Cor. xi. 23 — 26.) 

Such is the whole instruction afforded by the inspir- 
ed writers in this matter. Now let us see whereunto 
this short and simple observance, upon which no one 
of the apostles has dwelt for more than a few lines, 
let us see to what it has grown. The following is a 
description of the Roman ritual of the mass: 

"The mass, as viewed by a spectator, may be said 
to consist of five divisions. The first we may call 
the robing of the bishop in his pontificals, which must 
afford a highly intellectual and spiritual feast of soul 
to the spectators, and worshippers — shall I call them? 
The bishop enters the chapel in a woollen pontifical 
cope, which has its tail borne up by a chaplain; and 
going to the altar, he kneels down and says the ^ In- 
troibo, I will go in,' &:c. He then goes to the place 



346 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

where the paranienta, or robes and ornamenfSj are 
placed, and seats himself, surrounded by the proper 
quota of chaplains and deacons, one of whom acts 
as his prompter, to tell him what to say, and to point 
with his finger to the place in the book where he is to 
read; near them lie the various paraphernalia and 
sacred vessels. The attendants having duly put on 
their sanctified robes and surplices, the bishop rises, 
and turning towards the altar, says the Lord's prayer 
secretly; then crossing himself from his brow to his 
breast, he says, ^God be my helper.' And while the 
choir responds, he turns towards the altar, between 
two bearers of wax candles, and says, ' The Lord be 
with you,' and other prayers. Then gravely laying 
aside his pluvial, or cope, he takes the ornament 
called his planet, and approaches the altar, and sits 
down, while the psalm of the hours is being sung. 
During the singing, the holy sandals are brought out, 
one deacon lifts up the corner of his cope, while an- 
other takes off* the bishop's shoes; then uttering cer- 
tain prayers, he at last says, 'Shoe me with the san- 
dals of gladness.' The dutiful deacon then puts on 
the consecrated sandals; and thus answers his prayer. 
Then standing up he says, ' Lord! strip the old 
man off" me.' The scutiferus, or shield-bearer, an- 
swers this prayer by stripping him of his flowing 
cope. Then looking at his hands, he says, ^0 Lord, 
give virtue to my hands.' This prayer is answered 
by another, bringing a basin of water to wash his 
hands while he sits. The towel and basin are held 
by the most honourable and exalted layman, who, 
throwing himself on his knees, and pouring out a little 
water into the basin, sips and tastes it. Meanwhile, 
another of the attendants is taking the consecrated 
rings off the bishop's fingers; and then the distin- 
guished layman, with the aid of a deacon, washes 
the bishop's hands, and dries them, and then carries 
back the basin and towel to the credentia. The bish- 
op's feet being shod with the gospel preparation, by 
putting on sandals, and the old man being put off" by 
putting off his old woollen cope, and having washed 



THE MASS. 347 

his hands in virtue and innocence, by getting them 
washed in water, he approaches the robes, and says, 
*0 Lord, put on me the helmet of salvation.' At 
this signal the paramenia, or robes and ornaments, 
are all brought forward — fifteen in number. The 
bishop approaches, bows, and kisses five of them, viz. 
the amictus^ the pecioral, the cross, ihe stole, and the 
pall. All these the deacons receive from the chap- 
lains, one by one, and put upon the bishop. And 
first, with great solemnity, they take the amictus, and 
having all kissed it, they put it over the bishop's 
head, and fix it on him. His head being thus armed 
with the helmet of salvation, he stands up and says, 
'0 Lord, clothe me in white.' Upon this they put 
on the white surplice. Then he utters another prayer 
saying, '0 Lord, gird me with the girdle of faith.' 
On this, in answer to his humble and devout prayer, 
the ghostly menials take his girdle, and place it round 
him, and buckle it in front. Then addressing the 
cross, the bishop thus prays, ' Deign, Lord, to fortify 
me.' On this, the deacon, in his sacred functions, 
takes the cross, and holding it up to the bishop to be 
kissed, hangs it round his neck, so as to make it rest 
upon his breast. Next the bishop says to the stole, 
' Lord, give me the robe of immortality.' The 
deacon, whose office it is to answer this solemn prayer 
now puts on the robe, nicely adjusting it to his body. 
Next the prelate prays, as he looks on the tunicella, 
or little coat, ' Put me in the coat of jocundity, and 
clothe me, Lord, with the garment of joy.' This 
being put on him, he next prays thds: '0 Lord, 
clothe me with the garments of salvation.' Here 
they put on him the dalmatic, or episcopal vestment^ 
and he next fixes his eyes on the gloves, and prays, 
* Clothe my hands, Lord, with the purity of the 
new man.' On this the deacon, whose office it is to 
answer all these devout prayers, first kisses his right 
hand, and then puts a glove on it; then kisses the 
left and puts a glove on it; and so clothes his hands 
with heavenly purity. This being over, the bishop 
prays another prayer, saying, ^ Lord, thy yoke is 



348 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM 



easy.' On this, the attendants take the bishop's orna- 
ment, called the planet, and swing it back so as to 
give his arms full exercise. The pall is next brought; 
the deacon takes hold of it by the cross on the right 
side, and the sub-deacon by the cross on the left side, 
and hold forth the cross in the middle, that the bishop 
may kiss it. Then they put it round his neck, making 
that part on his left shoulder to lie double, and the 
whole is so put round his neck, that his arms are not 
hindered. Then comes the putting on the three thorns 
with their jewels. This, none but the initiated can 
well understand. The first thorn goes into the breast 
of the pall, the second into the cross on the left shoul- 
der, and the third into the cross behind. And these 
thorns must not go quite through the cross. After 
this, the good bishop, speaking to the mitre, says by 
way of prayer, ^Put on m.e, Lord, the mitre and 
the helmet of salvation.' Here he sits down, and 
the deacon devoutly puts the mitre on the bishop's 
head, the sub-dean as devoutly holding up the rib- 
bons that hang from it. The bishop sitting, then 
prays, ^Decorate with virtue, Lord, the fingers of 
my hand and body.' Here the deacons, in consum- 
mating his devout prayer, put the rings on his fingers. 
Next the gremial, a rich piece of silk to be held by 
two priests between the bishop and the people, when 
he says mass, is laid on his lap. This done, he prays 
to the rnanipulum. Then the cloth called by this 
name is laid across his arm. 

"At this stage of the business, the incense is pre- 
pared in the proper vessel, with many gesticulations 
and contortions. Then, with a nicely arranged pro- 
cession, the bishop comes to the steps of the altar and 
makes a full halt. Here the deacon takes off" his 
mitre, and combs and smooths down his hair. Then 
follows the confession of each of this holy confrater- 
nity. The bishop, bowing reverentially to the altar, 
begins the confession of his sins. The deacon, kiss- 
ing the bishop's left hand, goes up to the altar with 
the manipulumand the gospel open in his right hand. 
The bishop next, with suitable prayers, goes up to the 



THE MASS. 



349 



altar and kisses it with deep solemnity, and also the 
book of the gospels. Having next approached the 
horn of the epistle^ he takes the incense pot, puts in- 
cense in it, and causes the cloud of smoke to cover 
the altar. This holy and edifying service is done 
thus: having adored with profound reverence the im- 
age on the cross, he whirls the pot of incense three 
times round it, then he whirls the pot twice round the 
image and sacred relics on the right, and then around 
those on the left as often. Next he gives three swingings 
of the pot round the image and relics near the corner 
of the epistle; and as many he gives to the corner of 
the gospel. He then delivers the pot to the deacon, 
who swings it round the bishop himself, and smokes 
him effectually. After a number of other edifying 
gestures and motions, the bishop is helped up by the 
arms as if he were suddenly become paralytic, and 
being on his legs, he says, 'Glory to God!' taking 
care to join his hands on his breast at the word God. 
While the choir sings a hymn, he has his mitre and 
gremial brought to him; they are again taken off him 
as the hymn ends. He is again helped on his legs by 
the deacons, and he cries out unto the people, ''Peace 
he unto you^ and he keeps his hands before his 
breast, until the edified and devout audience re- 
ply, ^ and with thy spirit.' He then says, 'Let us 
pray;' and then goes on with the prayer in Latin, to 
the edification of those who do not understand one 
word of what is so said. After an incredible number 
of similar gestures, and the burning of incense, and 
kissing of the bishop's hands, and bowing, and reading 
what they call the gospel, and after the bishop has 
been again perfumed with incense smoke, and has 
stood up without mitre and gremial, he sits down to 
listen to a sermon. The preacher comes up, and on 
his knees adores the bishop, kisses his hand and asks 
a blessing. This he freely gives by making the sign 
of the cross over him. That finished, with much ges- 
ture and bowing the preacher gives the bishop his 
absolution. 

" Second. The bishop, or priest, sings five psalms, 
23 



350 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



then uncovers, combs down his hair, and washes his 
hands. Next comes the sprinkling of holy water, and 
singing of the introitus, as the bishop approaches the 
ahar. After a great many gestures, there is m.uch 
chanting. A linen cloth, full of pictures, is carried as 
a canopy over the bishop, by four ecclesiastics. Here 
again follow incense and chanting. There is the gra- 
dual and the hallelujah^ and the tractus, so called 
from the long drawling tone, and the nasal twang- 
ing of the priests, affecting much sorrow as they 
sing it. 

"The third part is the consecration, more properly 
so called. The gestures, and particularly the bowings 
and adoration here a^e not easily recounted. The 
sub-deacon puts on a long veil, takes the patina 
with two choice hosts or wafers, and the chalice, 
and covering them with the veil, goes up with them 
to the altar, following the bishop. Another brings 
the wine and water. The bishop now puts on his 
episcopal ring and mitre, and comes to the altar. At 
the altar his mitre is taken off, and he adores with low- 
ly bowing to the altar. The deacon now takes one of 
the hosts, and touching the patina and chalice with 
it, inside and outside, makes the sub-deacon taste of 
it. The other host he offers to the bishop, who takes 
it with both hands, and holding it up before his 
breast repeats the prayer, ^0 Lord, accept it,' &c. 
This is called the offertory^ from its being offered to 
God. The priest, before he offers the host, washes 
his hands a second time. In the interim the deacon 
throws over the altar a clean linen cloth, called a 
corporale, ox p alia ^ because they say it covers Christ's 
body. The chalice is also covered with another /?«//«. 
The deacon having presented the />«/mflr, with the 
host upon it, to the bishop, also presents the chalice, 
in which the priest mixes wine and water, and con- 
secrates it. In the consecration the water is blessed 
by the priest when mixed, not the wine, because the 
wine, they say, represents Christ, who needs no bless- 
ing. The priest again perfumes the altar and sacrifice 
three times in the manner of a cross, bows himself, 



THE MASS. 



351 



and kisses the altar, and repeats very softly the 
prayer which they call secreta. Though this prayer 
is said in silence, yet the conclusion of it is uttered in 
a loud voice, ^ per omnia sccitla seculorum.^ Then 
follows what they call prefatio, which begins with 
thanksgiving and ends with the confession of God's 
majesty. The minds of the people are prepared with 
these words, ' Lift up your hearts.^ The answer to 
which is, 'We lift them up unto the Lord.' Then 
is sung the hymn, 'Holy, holy, holy. Lord God,' &c. 
* Heaven and earth is full of thy glory.' Then fol- 
lows the hymn Hosanna, and the canon which is 
also called actio, because it is giving of thanks, which 
is uttered with a loud voice. The canon, besides 
thanksgiving, consists of various prayers for the pope, 
cardinals, bishops, kings, all orthodox Christians, 
Gentiles and Jews. Those also are particularly re- 
membered for whom the sacrifice is to be offered, and 
their names rehearsed. Prayer is also made for those 
that be present at the mass, and for the bishop him- 
self. Then mention is made of the virgin, the apos- 
tles, the evangelists, and martyrs, and many crossings 
follow; then the solemnity of the consecration of the 
host, by pronouncing aloud these words, ' Hoc est 
corpus meuvi.^ To this the people answer, ^Arnen.'' 
The priest now falls down on his knees before the 
consecrated host, and worships it, offers prayers to it, 
and rising up, he elevates it, that it may be worship- 
ped by all the people. Then, after several crossings 
of the host and chalice, this part of the mass is con- 
cluded with prayers for the dead, and the people's 
offerings of money to the priest, as a reward for 
praying in behalf of their dead friends, for their de- 
liverance out of purgatory. 

"The fourth part of the mass begins with the pa- 
ternoster, and some other prayers. The sub-deacon 
delivers the patina, covered, to the deacon, who un- 
covers it, and delivers it to the priest, and kisses his 
right hand. The priest kisses the patina, breaks the 
host over the chalice, and puts a piece of it in the 
wine, to show that Christ's body is not without blood. 



352 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM 



Then the bishop pronounces a solemn benediction. 
Next is sung the hymn, ' Lamb of God, that taketh 
away the sin of the world.' Then the kiss of peace 
is given, according, as they allege, to the apostoHc 
command. 

" The fifth and last part of the mass contains their 
communion. The priest, or bishop, communicates 
first himself. He takes the one-half of the host for 
himself, the other half he divides into two parts, one 
for the deacon, and the other for the sub-deacon. 
Next the clergy and monks communicate, and after 
them the people, but the latter have only the conse- 
crated wafer (or bread) allowed them, and put in 
their mouths, the cup being withheld from them, and 
drunk by the priests or clergy only. The priest holds 
the chalice (or cup) with both hands, and drinks three 
times, pretending thereby to signify the Trinity. The 
whole is concluded with what they call post-commu- 
nion, which consists in thanksgiving and singing of 
Antiqohonies. The priest then kisses the altar, and 
removes again to the right side of it, where, having 
offered some prayers for the people and blessed them; 
the deacon with a loud voice cries, ' Go in peace; the 
host is sent to God the Father, to pacify his anger.' " 

Now, after calmly considering these two pictures, 
the Saviour sitting at table with his disciples, and com- 
manding them, after his death, sometimes to break 
bread and taste wine '^in remembrance of him f 
and on the other side the Romish bishop, with his 
host of attendant priests, deacons, sub-deacons, acoly- 
tes, &c. with his bowings, crossings, kneelings^ sittings, 
standings, incense, bell-ringing, and what not, — let us 
seriously ask ourselves whether it is possible to find 
another case of so entire a departure from the whole 
character, internal and external, of the original insti- 
tution? The mass instituted in the upper chamber in 
Jerusalem! Yes, much in the same manner in which 
the massacre of St. Bartholomew was sanctioned by 
our Lord's saying to Peter, " Put up thy sword into 
its sheath, for all they that take the sword, shall pe- 
rish with thesivord.^^ 



THE MASS. 



353 



But we are not left to the bare words of the insti- 
tution, sufficient as these would be, to decide for us 
the question, whether the Romish mass, or the Pro- 
testant Lord's Supper, is the most faithful observance 
of our Lord's command. Further light is thrown 
upon the matter, by the recorded facts as to the main 
features of this sacrament, as used in the early church. 

What was the irregularity rebuked by Paul, in 
his instruction to the Corinthians. It was just this, 
that they had confounded the Lord's Supper, with 
their ordhiary meals, and ate merely to satisfy their 
hunger and thirst, without "discerning" or distinguish- 
ing the peculiarities of that observance, as a ^' show- 
ing forth of the Lord^s death.^^ 

Now this was a circumstance which might easily 
happen to such as merely took the narratives of the 
evangelists, and hastily and without proper reverence 
acted upon the words of the orignal institution. The 
sitting round a table, and breaking bread and drink- 
ing wine in an evening assembly, might easily be con- 
verted, by careless or irreverent disciples, intoan or- 
dinary supper. But then the very circumstance of 
the gradual and easy declension from the sacred feast 
into a sensual one, shows at once how near the one 
was, in outward appearance, to the other. How 
would it have been possible for the Corinthians to 
have fallen into such an abuse, if what they had been 
accustomed to, had been, not the Lord's Supper, but 
the Mass? Had any thing in the least resembling 
the Romish ceremonial been then in existence, how 
could the Corinthians ever have given the apostle the 
least cause for his rebuke? ^^ For in eating, every 
one taketh before another his own supper; and one 
is hungry, and another is drunken.''^ It is impossi- 
ble even to read these works, without seeing, that 
that which the Corinthians had corrupted, was not 
the Mass, but the Lord's Supper. 

Perhaps the reader may be momentarily tempted 
to think, " Then surely it would have been better if 
the Lord had instituted the mass instead of the Lord's 
Supper; if it be true that the supper was so quickly 



354 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



corrupted, while the mass could not have been." 
But the humble believer will instantly recall this 
thought, when he reflects that the real drift of it is, 
that sinful men could have contrived better ordi- 
nances and observances for Christ's church, than he 
himself, her Saviour and her God was able to supply! 

But we may pass on to an uninspired but most 
competent witness, Justin Martyr, who lived about 
half a century after the death of the last of the apos- 
tles. He, in writing an apology for the Christians, 
thus describes the practice of the church in his own 
time: 

" On the day which is called Sunday, there is an 
assembling together in one place, of those who live 
in towns, or in the country around; and the histories 
and writings of the prophets and apostles are read, 
as time may permit. Then the reader ceasing, the 
president (or elder) exhorts all to the imitation of 
those good things. Then we all rise and offer prayers, 
and when the service is finished, bread and wine and 
water are offered, and the president again offers 
prayers and thanksgivings, and the people say, 
*Amen.' And the communication and distribution 
is to each of those who have returned thanks."* 

Here again we have the simple communion of the 
Lord's Supper. Not a word of the gorgeous "mass," 
or of a sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead. 
But this last consideration brings us to the second 
feature of the case; which is the most important part 
by far of the whole question. 

The church of Rome makes of this simple comme- 
morative feast, not only a gorgeous ceremony, but 
something far higher: — a sacrifice for the remission 
of sins. Nay, when once it is admitted, or assumed, 
that in this celebration there is a real offering up of 
the actual body and blood of Immanuel, there is no 
end of the uses to which so great a thing may be ap- 
plied. A mass removes the sins of the living. A 
mass relieves, or entirely ends the sufferings of the 

* Apologia, ii. p. 97. 



THE MASS. 



355 



unpardoned dead. But these are but a few of the 
purposes to which so powerful a remedy can be ap- 
phed. Mr. O'Croly, himself a Romish priest, in- 
forms us, that — 

"Masses are offered for a variety of purposes, at 
least in the minds of the multitude — for brute beasts 
as well as for human beings. A farmer, who hap- 
pens to have his cattle disordered, the rot among his 
sheep, or the murrain among his cows, will have 
masses said for their recovery. The fishermen of 
Dungarvon, and elsewhere, regularly get masses said 
that they may hook the more fish. It is quite com- 
mon among the ignorant to be under the persuasion 
that worldly calamities result from the agency of evil 
spirits; which opinion, indeed, receives some coun- 
tenance from the book of Job. To counteract this 
malignant influence, they fly to the priest to have 
masses said. The priest takes no pains to remove 
the error, but accepts the pecuniary oflering. Friars 
carry this matter to the last extremity. There is a 
general impression, as we have said elsewhere, that 
the masses of friars are more eflicacious than those of 
the secular clergy. This impression answers the in- 
tended purpose; it brings more money into the coff'ers 
of the friars, who, however, are not at a loss to assign 
a theological reason for the super-excellence of their 
masses — namely, that their state of life is more per- 
fect than that of seculars — rather a knotty point to 
establish — as they make vows of poverty, at the same 
time that, like Dives in the Gospel, they are clothed 
in purple and fine linen, and fare sumptuously every 
day. The friars drive a considerable trade in masses. 
If a habit is to be blessed or consecrated, money 
must be given for masses in order, of course, to en- 
sure full efficacy to the benediction. These conse- 
crated habits are supposed to be worn in the other 
world. It would be accounted a great misfortune 
for a poor person residing in the neighbourhood of a 
friar to die without one. The blessing of the scapu- 
lar, of which more hereafter, must have the same 
accompaniment as the blessing of the habit; and the 



356 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

ceremony of induction, or reception, or enrolment 
among the various confraternities and sisterhoods of 
Carmelites, of St. Francis, of St. Augustine and St. 
Dominick, ever superinduces a grateful commission 
for saying masses, which are offered up at once for 
the benefit of the individuals contributing, and for 
the confriaternities at large, of which they then be- 
come membei^s. This they call the communion of 
saints. The friar is the certain gainer in all these 
pious transactions. 

" The doctrine of purgatory has an intimate con- 
nection with the traffic in masses, which, in the 
church language, are offered up for the quick and for 
the dead. The piety of the living seeks to mitigate 
the sufferings of their departed friends. This piety is 
carefully nurtured by the interested clergy. The feast 
of All Souls, or the beginning of November, as we 
have said elsewhere, is the critical period for the per- 
formance of this neighbourly and philanthropic duty. 
Nothing then is left untried to interest the faithful in 
behalf of the suffering souls in purgatory, who, it is 
said, can be most efficaciously relieved or extricated 
altogether, by the aid of masses, which are at once 
impetratory, propitiatory, and expiatory. This is a 
portion of the second of November doctrine, which is 
inculcated by every means that avaricious ingenuity 
can devise. Money was formerly raised by the sale 
of indulgences, and it used to be said, that the deposit 
of the money in the holy box, or on the holy plate, 
s^iddenly threw open the gates of purgatory for the 
enlargement or escape of the poor suffering inmates. 
It was this and other ridiculous doctrines that first 
provoked the zeal of Luther, and prepared the way 
for the Reformation. Substitute for the old indul- 
gences, masses for the dead, and you have the same 
solemn farce acted over again. So much for the theo- 
ry and practice of masses."* 

Now all this is very lamen-table, as well as very 
absurd; for it is impossible to imagine that one priest 

* O'Croly's Inquiry, 8vo. p. 107— -110. 



fHE MASS. 357 

out of a hundred can be so senseless as to imagine 
that any of these wonderful effects will really follow 
from the repeating of a number of Latin prayers, — 
although the whole hundred are constantly taking 
money for all these false cures! The whole system, 
therefore, is from beginning to end, a system of fraud, 
chicanery, and plunder, and all under the garb of re- 
ligion. 

But let us take the best possible view of the ques- 
tion. Let us only investigate the most plausible point 
in the papist's case, namely, the supposition that the 
mass is a real offering up of Christ's body, for the ap- 
peasing the wrath of the Father, and that by the 
application of one of these sacrifices to a believer's 
own individual case, his sins will be blotted out. 
This is the least offensive v\ew of the question; and 
yet, even in this mild and moderated form, we shall 
be obliged to denounce it — 1st, as utterly destitute of 
all foundation in Scripture; and 2dly, as directly 
opposed to many plain declarations in the inspired 
word. 

1. We turn over all the statements of the sacred 
writers, which refer to this observance; and we find 
not one single word to support the assumption, that 
our Lord intended herein to institute a perpetual sa- 
crifice for the remission of sins. In the Romish 
church, this one fact is made, in truth, the very centre 
of their system. If their representations might be 
taken, it would almost seem that the whole Bible was 
written to establish the mass! — that Christ, in fact, 
died, chiefly to establish the mass; — and that the mass 
is the very alpha and omega of all true Christianity. 
And yet, strange to say, you may read the whole New 
Testament straight through; and neither in prophet, 
apostle, evangelist, or even in the injunctions of our 
Lord himself, can a single outline or feature of the 
mass be found! 

^^In the divine sacrifice," says the council of Trent, 
*^ which is performed in the mass, that same Christ is 
contained and offered in an unbloody manner, who, 
on the altar of the cross offered himself with blood 



358 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM; 



once for all." And, "the Lord being appeased by 
the offering of this, and granting grace and the 
gift of repentance, remits crimes and sins, even great 
ones.'^ 

"I profess likewise," says the creed of Pope Pius 
IV., "that in the mass there is offered unto God 
a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the sins 
of the Uving and the dead." 

Now, where is a single word of all this to be found 
in the Scripture account of the institution of this sacra- 
ment ? Jesus, sitting at table after supper, ''took bread, 
and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, 
saying. This is tny body, ivhich is given for you: 
this do in remembrance of me.^' The same words 
are repeated twice by Paul, who then adds, ''Jls of- 
ten as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do 
SHOW THE Lord's death till he conie.^^ In the plain- 
est possible language, therefore, the institution is de- 
clared to be a "commemorative festival," but not a 
single syllable is said, of any "sacrifice" being so 
much as thought of. 

2. The idea, however, of a perpetual sacrifice, is not 
only not countenanced by Scripture, but it is utterly 
opposed to its plainest declarations. 

It has been well observed, that if the 7th, 8th, 9th, 
and 10th chapters of the epistle to the Hebrews had 
been expressly written against the mass, supposing it 
to have been then invented and palmed upon the church, 
they could not possibly have been more explicit or 
emphatic in their language. In fact we cannot doubt 
that the Divine Author had a double object in view — 
the denouncing the false doctrine then maintained by 
the Jewish teachers in the church, and the equally 
false doctrine which He foreknew would be intro- 
duced by the Romish teachers some centuries after- 
wards. 

The assumption of these latter, is, that the work of 
a sinner's salvation is not completely effected, even 
by the one offering made on Calvary, the application 
of that blood to the soul by the Holy Spirit, and the 
perpetual intercession and mediation of the Saviour 



THE MASS. 359 

in heaven on its behalf. All this is not enough. The 
Father yet remains unpropitiated, until another sacri- 
fice is offered up on earth, by a priest of the Romish 
church, who takes a wafer, pronounces some Latin 
words over it, declares it to be thus changed into 
Christ's own body and blood, and holds it up to God 
the Father, at the sight of which that wrath is ap- 
peased which not all the pains of Calvary, nor the 
personal intercessions of the Saviour himself at the 
right hand of the throne, had been able entirely to 
abate ! 

The blasphemy of all this is shocking; but we 
must not permit our disgust to turn us away from the 
calm consideration of the truth of the case. It is 
not the tone of our feelings, but the declarations of 
Scripture, that must decide the w^iole question. Now 
these declarations are such, as to render it scarcely 
possible to doubt, that they were chiefly intended to 
apply to this great abomination. 

" For such an High Priest became lis, ivho is holy, 
harmless, iindefiled, separate from, sinners, and 
made higher than the heavens; who needeth not 
DAILY, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, 
first for his own sins, and then for the people^ s: for 
this he did oycE, when he offered up himself'' (Heb. 
vii. 26, 27.) 

"i\or yet (was it necessary) that he should offer 
him,self often, as the high priest entereth into the 
holy place every year with blood of others; for then 
must he often have suffered since the foundation of 
the world: but now once in the end of the world 
hath he appeared, to put away sin by the sacrifice 
of himself Ajid as if is appointed unto men once 
to die. but after this the judgment; so Christ was 
oxcE offered to bear the sins of many; and unto 
them that look for him shall he appear the second 
time without sin unto salvation^ (Heb. ix. 25 — 28.) 

Read also the first ten verses of the 10th chapter, 
the whole argument of which is, that the Levitical 
sacrifices were often offered, simply because they 
were shadows, and had no innate value; but that if 



360 



ESSAYS ON ROlMfANISM: 



any one of them could have put away sin, the repeti- 
tion would at once have " ceased.''- The apostle then 
proceeds: 

''And every priest standeth daily ministering 
and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which 
can never take away sins: but this man, after he 
had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever'* sat 
down on the right hand of God; from henceforth 
expecting till his enemies he made his footstool. For 
by one offering he hath perfected for ever them 
that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also 
is a witness to us: for after that he had said before. 
This is the covenant that I will make with them af- 
ter those days, saith the Lord, Iivillput my laws into 
their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 
and their sins and iniquities will I remember no 
more. Now where remission of these is, there is no 
more offering for sin." (Heb. x. 11 — 18. 

Is it possible for language to go beyond this? Had 
the mass existed in the apostle's days, and had he 
wished to denounce it, could he possibly have found 
language more clear or decisive? In fact, the mass 
can only be defended at all, by directly denying the 
truth of all the apostle's statements. The Romanist 
must assert, plainly, that " by one offering" Christ 
hath not " perfected for ever them that are sanctifi- 
ed;" that " the offering of the body of Jesus Christ 
once for all" does not sanctify the believer in him; 
and that it is necessary that Christ "should offer 
himself often," for that he hath no/ "put away sin 
by the sacrifice of himself." All this must the de- 
fender of the mass affirm, and when he has gone thus 
far, it is certainly by no means surprising that he 

*The words s/? to ^miKi^ in the original, may be, and perhaps 
should be translated " for a continuance," or " for perpetuity," and 
be referred to the preceding clause, thus, ' ' after he had offered for 
sins one sacrifice for a continuance;" i.e. one sacrifice for all times, 
unam pro peccatis offerens in sempiternum hostiam, sedet etc., which 
is the Vulgate, with no other alteration than the transposition of the 
words in sempiternum. Compare this verse with verse 14th of the 
same chapter. — [Am. Ed.] 



THE MASS. 361 

should wish to have the Bible put out of sight. It is 
impossible for him not to be conscious that to a plain 
honest student of God's word, the opposition between 
his statements and those of Paul must appear alto- 
gether total. 

Such, then, is the Scriptural view of this question. 
In conclusion, we have wished and endeavoured to 
state as fairly as we could, such proofs and arguments 
as we could find in any Romish writers, in defence 
of their view. But in trnth, their array is so scanty 
as to be almost invisible. They quote Malachi i. 11: 
" In every place incense shall be offered unto my 
name, and a pure offering.''^ They also quote the 
case of Melchizedec, who offered bread and wine, 
and who is said to be a type of Christ. 

Nothing, however, can be clearer, than that the use 
of these texts in such a case is a reversal of the true 
laws of interpretation. We ought to interpret figura- 
tive and obscure passages by such as are plain and 
beyond doubt. But in this case the Romanists require 
us to interpret the plain and explicit language of our 
Lord, and of Paul, by reference to the figurative lan- 
guage of Malachi, and the typical language applied 
to Melchizedec! Into such an argument it would be 
a waste of time to enter. 

Their only remaining prop is found in their usual 
resort to the fathers. Several of these have called the 
Lord's Supper "a sacrifice." We admit it; but in 
what sense do they use the term? Clemens Alexan- 
drinus says, *' our earthly altar is the assembly of such 
as join together in prayer, having as it were a com- 
mon voice and mind. For the sacrifice of the church 
is the word ascending as incense from holy souls, 
their sacrifice and their whole minds being open to 
God."* And Tertullian interprets the very passage 
in Malachi, on which the Romanists so greatly rely, 
thus: "Here spiritual sacrifices are meant, and a 
contrite heart is shown to be an acceptable sacrifice 
to God."t 

* Stromata, Lib. vii. p. 717. + Adversus Judseos, Ch. v. p. 188. 



362 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM. 

Never, then, surely, was so strong a case on the 
one side, opposed by so weak an one, on the other. 
Take the plain narrative of Scripture, and it exhibits 
to us ^' the Lord's Supper" of the Protestants; but 
nothing in the least resenribling "the mass'^ of the 
Papists. Turn to the records of the early church, 
and again we find a simple commemorative festival, 
without the least trace of the gorgeous ceremony in 
which incense, and bell-ringing, and lighted candles, 
and genuflections without number, deck out a service, 
wherein the laity, in place of bread and wine, receive 
a wafer, — while the priests profess to be offering " a 
sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead." 
Look, then, to the doctrine of the apostles touching sa- 
crifices, and we find that " hy one offering" Christ 
" IS. K'YYL perfected for ever them that are sanctified J^ 
No refuge remains, then, for the doctrine of the mass, 
save in the last resort of the Romanists, the grand 
magazine of all kinds of opinions, the countless tomes 
of the fathers, whence sentences of every hue, and 
proving or disproving, in turn, every doctrine and 
every practice of the church, may at any time be 
found. The main argument, however, derived from 
this source, is that the Supper is often called a sacri- 
fice. We admit this without hesitation; but we show, 
in reply, that the term '-sacrifice" is so vaguely and 
indiscriminately used in their writings, as to render 
it absurd to base any doctrine on this single expres- 
sion. And so ends the discussion, which surely ter- 
minates, however imperfectly conducted on our own 
part, in favour of that mode of observing our Lord's 
last command, which approaches the nearest to his 
own practice and example. 



363 



XIX.— ROMISH DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES. 



THE PARDON OF SIN; PURGATORY; AND INDULGENCES. 

A FEW subjects yet remain, which demand a careful 
and patient investigation. One of these is the Pardon 
of Sin, as preached by the church of Rome; with its 
two branches, Purgatory and Indulgences. Let us 
devote a few moments to a serious consideration of 
these doctrines. 

In bringing the mind to these topics, it will be im- 
possible to forget that remarkable circumstance, which 
stands recorded as giving rise to the Reformation. 
There is no reason to suppose that in other respects 
it differed from the usual practice of the Romish see; 
but as having caused so great a revolution in the state 
of the visible church, it will ever remain peculiarly 
distinguished in the page of history. 

In the year A. D. 1514, and even under the direc- 
tion of one of the most acute and intelligent of all the 
popes, began that particular issue of indulgences, for 
money, which raised the indignation of Martin Lu- 
ther, and brought on, ultimately, the Reformation in 
Germany. Leo X. professed to need funds for the 
erection of St. Peter's, and for carrying on a war with 
the Turks. For these ends he issued the papal briefs, 
proclaiming a general indulgence to all who would 
purchase it, — and immediately the agents and sales- 
men of these paper-pardons began to publish and 
offer them for sale throughout Europe. " The mo- 
ney," says Bower, " went to neither purpose, but was 
lavished in gratifying the luxury of the court of Rome 
and its dependents." The sale of these indulgences 
in Saxony, and the produce of such sale, were given 



364 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



to the pope's sister Magdalen, who employed as her 
agents, Tetzel, a Dominican monk, of notoriously im- 
moral habits. The form of pardon published by 
Tetzel, ran thus, — " May our Lord Jesus Christ have 
mercy upon thee, and absolve thee by his most holy 
passion; and I, by his authority, and that of his bles- 
sed apostles Peter and Paul, and of the most holy 
pope, granted and committed to me in these parts, do 
absolve thee; first, from all ecclesiastical censures, in 
whatever manner they have been incurred; and, then, 
from all thy sins, transgressions, and excesses, how 
enormous soever they may be; even from such as are 
reserved for the cognizance of the holy see; and as far 
as the keys of the holy church extend, I remit to you 
all punishment which you deserve in purgatory on 
their account, and I restore you to the holy sacra- 
ments of the church, to the unity of the faithful, and 
to that innocence and purity which you possessed at 
baptism; so that, when you die, the gates of punish- 
ment shall be shut, and the gates of the paradise of 
delight shall be opened; and if you shall not die at 
present, this grace shall remain in full force when you 
are at the point of death. In the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And his 
harangues, in pushing the sale of these things, are thus 
described by Lonicerus: ''He impudently preaches 
up the pope's dignity and power, and the virtue and 
efficacy of indulgences, bawling out, that there could 
be no wickedness committed so great, but that might 
thereby be forgiven; and that those souls which are 
tormented in purgatory, as soon as the money was 
flung into the basin, skipped for joy, and, being re- 
leased from their pains, flew right to heaven."* 

Such was the doctrine, such the practice of the 
church of Rome, as to the pardon of sin, up to the 
very moment of the Reformation. Now, however, in 
the broad face of day, and in countries like this, rejoic- 
ing in the free circulation of the word of God, and an 
open proclamation of pardon by the blood of Christ 

* Theatr. Histor. fo. 241. 



THE PARDON OF SIN. 



365 



alone, these monstrous follies and frauds no longer 
venture to show themselves. The greatest care and 
ingenuity is used to cloak and cover the doctrine 
preached; but still that doctrine is essentially the same 
as in the days when Leo and Tetzel carried it to its 
full and legitimate results. Let us now see in what 
cautious and insidious phrases it is cloaked and cover- 
ed by Dr. Wiseman. The following are his words: — 

" The Catholic church teaches, that Christ did estab- 
lish on earth a means whereby forgiveness should be 
imparted to wretched sinners; — whereby, on the per- 
formance of certain acts, all who have offended God 
may obtain authoritative forgiveness." " The Catho- 
lic church believes that the institution thus left by our 
Saviour was the sacrament of penance."^ 

" Sin is forgiven by a sacrament instituted by Christ 
for that purpose, for which the power of pronouncing 
judicial sentence of remission was communicated to 
the pastors of the church. t" 

*• We believe that upon this forgiveness of sinsj 
that is, after the remission of that eternal debt, which 
God in hisjustice awards to transgressions against his 
law, he has been pleased to reserve a certain degree 
of inferior or temporary punishment, appropriate to 
the guilt which had been incurred; and it is on this 
part of the punishment alone, that according to the 
Catholic doctrine satisfaction can be made to God."| 

" The doctrine of purgatory follows as a conse- 
quence or coroUar}?" from that of which I have just 
treated; so much so, that the Catholic doctrine of 
satisfaction would be incomplete without it. The idea 
that God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, 
would not go to its fullest and necessary consequence, 
if we did not believe that the sinner may be so pun- 
ished in another world, as not to be wholly and eter- 
nally cast away from God."§ 

*• Prayer for the dead is essentially based on the 

♦Wiseman's Tenth Lecture, p. 8, 9. X Ibid, p. 41. 

t Wiseman's Eleventh Lecture, p. 41. § Ibid. p. 52. 

24 



366 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



belief in purgatory, and tlie principles of both are 
consequently intimately connected together. Why 
does the Catholic pray for his departed friend, but 
that he fears, lest not having died in so pure a state 
as to have been immediately admitted to the sight of 
God, he may be enduring that punishment which 
God has awarded after the forgiveness of his sins; 
and believes, that, through the intercession of his 
brethren, he may be released from the distressing situ- 
ation."* 

"What then is an indulgence? It is no more than 
a remission by the church, in virtue of the keys, or 
the judicial authority committed to her, of a portion, 
or the entire, of the temporal punishment due to sin. 
The infinite merits of Christ form the fund whence 
this remission is derived; but besides, the church 
holds, that, by the communion of saints, penitential 
works performed by the just, beyond what their own 
sins might exact, are available to other members of 
Christ's body." 

" It is evident that if the temporal punishment re- 
served to sin, was anciently believed to be remitted 
through the penitential acts which the sinner as- 
sumed, any other substitute for them, that the autho- 
rity imposing or recommending them, received as an 
equivalent, must have been considered by it truly 
of equal value, and as acceptable before God. And 
so it must be now. If the duty of exacting such 
satisfaction devolves upon the church, — and it must 
be the same now as it formerly was, — she necessarily 
possesses at present the same power of substitution, 
with the same efficacy, and consequently, with the 
same effects. And such a substitution is what con- 
stitutes all that Catholics understand by the name of 
an indulgence.^ ^\ 

Such then, is the present version of this doctrine, 
as polished and trimmed and set off to the best ad- 
vantage, so as to win, if it were possible, even the 

* Wiseman's Eleventh Lecture, p. 54. 
t Wiseman's Twelfth Lecture, p. 71, 72. 



THE PARDON OF SIN. 367 

affections of intelligent Protestants. Two remarks 
may be made, in the first place, and we will then 
pass on to the closer consideration of the opposing 
views of Protestantism and Popery m this matter. 

The first remark is, that an important variation is 
apparent between the doctrine preached by Tetzel, in 
A. D. 1516, and that avowed by Dr. Wiseman in 1836. 
Tetzel says, "By the authority of Christ, and of the 
blessed apostle Peter and Paul, and of the most holy 
Pope, I absolve thee from a// thi/ sins, transgressions, 
and excesses, hotv enormous soever they may be." 
Dr. W. says, "An indulgence is iiothing more than 
a remission by the church of a portion, or the whole, 
of the temporal punishm,ent due to sin.'^ This is 
another proof, if any were needed, of the pliability 
v/ith which this infallible and unchangeable church 
adapts her demands to the degree of credulity upon 
which she can venture to calculate. 

The second point which seems to call for observa- 
tion, is the utter want of Scripture authority for the 
whole of this system. Here is " a sacrament of pen- 
ance." Where, in the whole Bible, do we find a single 
word of, or even an allusion to, any such "sacrament?" 
The text, John xx. 23, is adduced: — ^^ Receive ye the 
Holy Ghost : whose soever sins ye remit, they are re- 
mitted unto them: and whose soever sins ye retain, 
they are retained.^'* But the true and the false ap- 
plication of this passage is sufficiently apparent. Peter 
retained the sins of Ananias and Sapphira, and re- 
mitted those of Cornelius. When any other minister 
can show the like signs of divine authority, we will 
believe as readily in the certainty of a remission 
granted by him. But when those who call them- 
selves " the successors of St. Peter," declare that the 
sins of Cranmer, Ridley, and all the martyrs are re- 
tained, we know of a truth that they speak falsely, 
and that what they retain is not retained. 

Several texts are adduced, indeed, to prove that 
God chastises his children for their sins, even when 
he intends not to take away his love from them; — 
but no Protestant questions this. The Popish infer- 



368 ESSAYS ON eomanism: 

ence, however, — that the church has power to take 
off this "temporal punishment" on payment of a cer- 
tain sum of money, — is not attempted to be proved, 
save by one passage, 2 Cor. ii. 5 — 10. But in this 
passage again, as in the case of Peter, we have an 
inspired apostle, speaking " with the power of our 
Lord Jesus Christ:" and yet even there we see no- 
thing more than a mere matter of discipHne, a tem- 
porary seclusion from the church, such as takes place 
among all Christian congregations, Romish or Pro- 
testant, wherever any thing like discipline is professed 
to be kept up. 

The only remaining appeal to Scripture, is worth 
extracting, as a specimen of exceeding artfulness. 
It occurs ia Dr. W's defence of Purgatory. He 
says, — 

''But to begin with the ivord of God, — there is a 
passage with which, probably, most who have looked 
into this subject are well acquainted. It is in the 
second book of Maccabees, (chapter xii.) where we 
are told how Judas, the valiant commander, made a 
collection, and ^sent 12,000 drachmas of silver to 
Jerusalem for sacrifice, to be offered for the sins of 
the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning 
the resurrection. For if he had not hoped that they 
that were slain should rise again, it would have 
seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. 
It is, therefore, a holy and wholesome thought to 
pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their 
sins.' (ver. 43 — 46.) Many will say that the second 
book of Maccabees is not part of the Scripture; that 
it is not included in its canon. I will waive that 
question for the present, although it would not be 
difficult to prove that it has the same right to be in 
the canon as many books in the Old, and still more in 
the New Testament: for it is quoted by the fathers as 
Scripture, and enumerated in its canon by councils 
which have drawn up catalogues of its books. But 
let us abstract from this consideration, which would 
lead us into too long a discussion. It is allowed, at 
any rate, by all, to contain sound edifying doctrines: 



THE PARDON OF SIN. 369 

for even the church of England allows, and even di* 
rects it to be read for instruction; whence one may 
conclude that she does not suppose it to contain doc- 
trines opposed to the religion of Christ."* 

Dr. Wiseman should have taken care to be correct 
in such assertions as these. The church of England 
does, indeed, "allow or even direct'^ ^oTzze books of 
the Apocrypha to be read in her week-day services, 
but the books of Maccabees she carefully excludes, 
and with abundant reason.! In the 12th chapter of 
the second book stands that verse which Dr. W. 
quotes, maintaining, in opposition to the whole af 
God's word, the expediency and duty of prayer for 
the dead. In the 14th chapter, we find a narrative 
of an act oi suicide^ which is given with approbation! 
And at the close, the author says, "i/*/ have done 
well, and as is fitting the story, it is that which I de- 
sired: but if slenderly and meanly, it is that which I 
could attain unto.'' Here is a plain admission of his 
fallible and uninspired character; and we know from 
the Jews themselves, that these books were not by 
them received. To elevate them, therefore, as Dr. 
Wiseman and his church persist in doing, to the rank 
of " the word of God," is to expose themselves to 
the curses denounced in Scripture, upon those who 
shall add unto, or take from, the inspired word. Most 
craftily, too, does Dr. W. endeavour to evade this 
question. He adduces the passage as " the word of 
God," and then he avoids the question of its authen- 
ticity, upon which its value must entirely depend, as 
Hkely to " lead to too long discussion." But he must 
remember, that until this book of Maccabees can be 
proved to be part of the canon of Scripture, z^;^2cA it 
never can he, its value in a controversy of this kind is 
no more than that of any other old Jewish fable. 

But it is time we approached the main question: 
which is, in what manner sin is dealt with under the 

* Wiseman's Eleventh Lecture, p. 54, 55. 

t On the subject of the Apocrypha, see the Westminster Confession, 
k III. of Chap. I.— [Am. Ed.] 



370 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

system of the church of Rome. Some doctrine of Jus- 
tification that church must needs admit; but it has 
cunningly contrived, that, while making use of the 
na77ie, the thing itself should be wholly set aside. 
These are its definitions — 

"Justification itself is not only the remission of 
si7is,h\ii also sanctification, and the renewing of the 
inner man by the voluntary reception of grace.'' 

"The instrumental cause of justification is, the sa- 
crament of baptism, the formal cause, the righteous- 
ness of God; not that whereby he himself is right- 
eous, but that whereby he maketh us so; with which 
being endued by him, we are renewed in the spirit of 
our mind, and not only accounted, but are truly called, 
and are, righteous; receiving in ourselves righteous- 
ness, according to the measure which the Holy Spirit 
distributeth to every one as he will, and according to 
each m,an^s disposition and co-operation.^^ 

"If any shall say, that men are justified only by 
the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or only 
by the remission of sins, excluding grace and love, 
which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy 
Spirit, and is inherent in them; or also that the grace 
wherewith we are justified is only the favour of God; 
let him be accursed.^' 

If any shall say, that justification which has been 
received is not preserved, yea also increased before 
God by good works; but that these works are merely 
the fruit and signs of justification, which has been 
obtained, but not the cause of the increase of it; let 
him he accursed.''^ Counc. Trent, Sess. vi. c. 7. can, 
xi. xxiv. 

Here, then, we see that in the church of Rome 
there is no such thing as a full and free pardon of 
sin. The justification above described, is, in fact, no 
justification at all. It is something which is only be- 
gun by baptism, and to grow and increase "according 
to each man's disposition and co-operation." It 
amounts, therefore, to nothing more than a sort of 
indefinite entrance into "a state of grace," the abid- 



THE PARDON OF SIN. 371 

ing in which, or the falUng away from it, depends 
mainly on the individual himself. 

But here, of course, there can be no spirit of 
•Adoption. The position of the individual is at best 
no higher than that of a servant. He is not a par- 
doned, accepted, and beloved member of God's fam- 
ily; he is but on trial, as to whether his exertions may 
be such as to render him worthy of the favour of 
God. In other words, he is said to be a justified sin- 
ner, and yet is not held to be just in the sight of 
God. A just man, one who is truly justified, is free 
from all imputation of guilt. But this is not his case. 
In the church of Rome, in fact, there is no true justi- 
fication. Not even the purest and holiest member of 
that church can assure himself, according to her doc- 
trines, that his sins are pardoned and his guilt re- 
moved. 

Now is this view a Scriptural one? Need we ask 
the question, at least of any one who has any ac- 
quaintance with the word of God? 

Paul's description will instantly occur to such an 
one — ^'To him that worketh not, but helieveth on 
him that justijieth the ungodly, his faith is counted 
for righteousness. Even as David describeth the 
blessedness of the tnan, unto whom God imp^itetk 
righteousness without works, saying. Blessed are 
they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins 
are covered; blessed is the man unto whom the Lord 
will not impute sin." (Rom. iv. 5 — 8.) 

And again — '^ Therefore being justified by faith, 
we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus 
Christ; by whom also we have access into this grace 
wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory 
of God." (Rom. v. 1, 2.) " We joy in God, through 
our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now re- 
ceived the atonement." (Rom. v. 11.) ^^There is 
therefore now no condemnation to them which are in 
Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after 
the Spirit." '•'The Spirit itself beareth witness 
with our spirit, that we are the children of God" 
(Rom. viii. 16.) 



372 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM 



And, from these transporting motives, the Apostle 
proceeds to urge those to whom he wrote, to a cor- 
responding work of hoUness, '•'• I beseech you therefore, 
brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your 
bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, 
which is your reasonable service.^' (Rom. xii. 1.) 

And such, through all the gospels, and all the 
epistles, is the Scripture system. First, pardon, full 
and free, by the blood of Christ; then adoption into 
God's family, as " heirs of God and joint heirs with 
Christ:'^ then, constant exhortations to " ivalk wor- 
thy of the high vocation wherewith ye are called.'' 
It is in this way, and in this way only, that the 
s^postles trained up their people for heaven. 

But the Romish system is utterly opposed to this 
scheme of mercy from its very outset. It rejects the 
first step of a full and free forgiveness, and pro- 
claims instead a spurious justification, by which a 
man is not justified. By this false view — by this 
simulation of the gospel doctrine, a man is offered a 
justification which consists in "a renewing of the inner 
man,'^ " according to each man's own disposition and 
co-operation :'' and therefore dilfers little from the 
heathen prmciple of "a gradual advancement in virtue, 
by means of self-denial, and the constant practice of 
good works." 

The main and central doctrine of the Bible, that 
which constitutes the very essence of the gospel, or 
good news, is here silently omitted. Man's natural 
inability is left to struggle with the impracticable task 
of saving his own soul; and God's great gift of a 
Saviour, who became a substitute for man, and '^died, 
the just for the unjust, to bring us unto God,'' is 
dropped wholly out of view. 

Justification, then, is left, by the church of Rome, 
to man's own exertions; and from this fundamental 
error spring various noxious fancies and mischievous 
practices. 

]. We have, as we have already seen, the mass, 
as a perpetually renewed sacrifice, to make up what 
was left unfinished by Christ's death upon the cross, 



THE PARDON OF SIN. 373 

and to appease the wrath of God, supposed to be still 
burning, even agai'mst justified and repentant sinners! 

2. Next, we have tlie Sacrament of Penance, 
inchiding Confession; by which the poor Romanist 
instead of daily flying to the blood of Christ, to be 
washed and sanctified and strengthened, throws him- 
self at the feet of a priest; receives the false peace 
which flows from eight or ten words of Latin; and 
undertakes certain penitential works, as a satisfac- 
tion to God, for that part of his sin which neither 
the blood of the cross, nor even the sacrifice of the 
mass, could quite wash away. 

3. But this course of folly and impiety does not 
end here. The church having prescribed certain 
prayers and fastings, tp the penitent, for the putting 
away the last remains of his guilt, assumes to her- 
self, next, the further power of compounding those 
exactions for money. And thus arises the Indul- 
gence, that grossest of all the deceits of the "great 
whore, '^ which is well described as making " mer- 
chandize" of the "souls of men.'^ (Rev. xviii. 13.) 
And, lastly, 

4. Not to part with the poor sinner, so long as it is 
possible to squeeze any more money out of him, the 
apostate church tells him on his death-bed, and tells 
his weeping friends after his decease — that there is 
another place, after death, besides heaven and hell; 
and that to that third or intermediate state, her power 
extends. And such is the v/eakness of the human 
mind, that for the exertion of this supposed autho- 
rity over the intermediate state of purgatory, treasures 
beyond all count have been paid by poor dying sin- 
ners, and their deluded relatives. 

Yet is this fabrication entirely opposed to Scripture, 
and not less to common sense. Our Lord's own de- 
scription of the future state may be found in Luke 
xvi. 20 — 31, where one whose only declared off'ence 
had been that of luxury and carelessness, lifts up his 
eyes "in hell," and is told, that between him and 
heaven there is a great gulf fixed, so that no way from 
the one to the other could possibly be found. And in 



374 



ESSAYS ON eomanism; 



Matt, xviii. 9, Christ with equal plainness intimates 
that even a wandering eye or an erring foot may lead, 
not to purgatory, but to hell. Many times, indeed, 
does Christ set before his hearers the danger of hell- 
fire; but not once does he tell them of the flames of 
purgatory. This of itself stamps the whole invention 
as a fiction and a fraud. 

But it is equally opposed to common sense. A 
place is declared to exist of which nothing whatever 
is known, either from divine or human testimony. 
Not one of the prophets or apostles even so much as 
alludes to it; the early fathers of the church knew 
nothing of it; nor have the later writers of the church 
of Rome one fact to offer us in proof of its bare exist- 
ence. Mr. O'Croly (himself a priest) admits that 
" The holy fathers say not a word about the fire of 
purgatory. The fact is, they denied the existence of 
any such place. John Chrysostom, in his fourteenth 
homily on Matthew, afiirms that after death no mer- 
cy, but rigid justice is to be expected. There is no 
middle place (said he) between hell and heaven. 
This language cannot be misunderstood. Even in 
the beginning of the sixth century, the doctrine of 
purgatory was little known. Fulgentius, in answer 
to a question proposed by Euthemius, namely, whe- 
ther God remits in this life only? — declared in the af- 
firmative. ''After this life, (he says,) there is no in- 
termediate state between punishment and reward; 
that rigid justice only will be exercised in the world 
to come." He either rejected the doctrine of purga- 
tory, or he knew nothing of it, for he speaks without 
qualification or exception.'^* 

The real character, however, of the whole invention 
is well described by this unexceptionable witness, in 
the following words: — 

" However, the doctrine constantly preached by the 
priests and friars, is, that the poor souls in purgatory 
are enveloped in flames, and sufler, like ]3ives, the 
most excruciating torture : and that, to relieve them 

* O'Croly's Inquiry, p. 162. 



THE PARDON OF SIN. 375 

from this calamity, masses, for which money is paid, 
are most efRcacious. This is not only to make the 
doctrine of purgatory an article of faith, hut also an 
article of merchandize; and, contrary to the admoni- 
tion of Paul, to teach that which is unseemly, for the 
sake of filthy lucre."* 

Such is the candid admission of one of the Romish 
priesthood! Nothing, however, can throw such a 
strong light on this fraudful system, as a circumstance 
adverted to by Mr. Nolan, who also was lately a priest 
of that church, though now escaped from its snares. 
He says, 

^'The Rev. Mr. Curran, lately parish priest of Kil- 
lucan, Westmeath, with whom I was personally ac- 
quainted, bequeated to the Rev. Dr. Cantwell, of 
Mullingar, £300, to be expended on masses (at 2s. 6d. 
each) for such intentions as he (Mr. Curran) had neg- 
lected to discharge. From this it appears by arith- 
metical computation, that the Rev. Mr. Curran died 
owing two thousand four hundred masses, most of 
which (as must necessarily be presumed,) were to be 
offered for the souls in purgatory. Now, gentle reader, 
allow me to tell you, that had the Rev. Mr. Curran 
survived, he would require more than twenty years 
to discharge the last of his intentions; for as priests 
are allowed to offer only two masses on each Sunday 
and holiday, and but one on week-days, and as the 
masses offered by the parish priest on those festival- 
days must be offered for the general benefit of the 
congregation, and as the masses at stations (which 
engross a great portion of the priest's services through- 
out the year) must be offered for the particular benefit 
of the fam.ily at whose house the stations are held; it 
would therefore follow, that the Rev. Mr. Curran would 
require a period of at least twenty years to discharge 
his debt of masses. 0, abominable notion, to suppose 
that the Lord Jesus Christ would institute a doctrine 
whose rigour or relaxation of punishment to a soul, 

* O'Croly's Inquiry, p. 161, 162. 



376 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

was to depend upon the whim or caprice of the Rev. 
John Curran!* 

Is there any thing in the most senseless follies of 
the darkest heathenism, to exceed the absurdity and 
delusion of such hopes as these? A widow carries 
her little mite to a priest, hoping and believing, that 
by the power of the intercessions of this holy man, 
her departed husband may be released from his dole- 
ful prison in purgatory, and translated at once into 
the joys of paradise. But if she had the misfortune 
to select a priest who has much business in this way, 
her money may be taken, but the prayers may not 
be said for some twenty or thirty years. And all 
this time the poor soul is said to be immersed in boil- 
ing oil, or freezing in prisons of ice, in that dreadful 
place ! 

What a picture does this present, of the God of the 
Popish system. ^^ If I ascend up into heaven,''^ says 
the Psalmist, ''thou art there: if I make my bed in 
hell^ behold, thou art there:^' Surely this is a truth 
which even a Papist will not venture to deny. But 
will he seriously assure us, that Christ, who, in his 
omnipresence, must pervade purgatory as well as all 
other places, will yet calmly witness hundreds or 
thousands of souls whom he has redeemed, and who 
are left to be tortured in that frightful place for scores 
of years, merely because certain priests on earth, who 
have been paid to say some prayers for their release, 
have not yet found time to repeat them } 

But if this blasphemous doctrine dishonours God, 
it may also fairly be asked, in what sort of light does 
it place the priesthood.^ 

" They believe, or at least they teach, that the 
friends of their flock are lying weltering in a lake of 
fire, from which they could deliver them, by saying 
masses for them, and recommending them to the 
prayers of the congregation; and yet they will not 

* Rev. L. J. Nolan's Third Letter, p. 39. The will here alluded to 
was proved in the Prerogative Court of Dublin, on the 6th of Jan. 1838. 



1 



THE PARDON OF SIN. 377 

say these masses, nor so recommend them, unless 
they be regularly paid for it! How can a man re- 
present himself as such a monster, and yet hold up 
his head in civilized society? What! shall I believe 
that a single soul is suffering torments so dreadful; 
that it may continue to suffer them for ages; that I 
have the means in my power of relieving it; and yet 
shall I coolly wait till I be paid, before I use these 
means? By what process of reasoning can men be 
brought to believe that this is the religion given to us 
for our salvation, by our kind and merciful Father in 
heaven? By what arguments can the poor be con- 
vinced that a system of extortion, which gives so 
manifest a preference to the rich, can be that gospel 
which was to be preached peculiarly to the poor?'' 

*• Survey the whole transaction. A self-elected in- 
corporated body declare, that they alone are commis- 
sioned by God, to teach what he chooses should be 
known respecting eternity and the world of spirits; 
and that the truth of what they teach, nay, and the 
reality of their commission, are not to be exam- 
ined, further than they themselves think fit to submit 
them to examination. Among many other doctrines 
equally profitable to themselves, they teach that 
the souls, even of those who listen to them impli- 
citly, must go to a place of torment for a time, to be 
purified, before they enter on the infinite rewards of 
their implicit faith and obedience: that they, by per- 
forming certain mystical ceremonies and incantations, 
which they call ' JNIass,' can shorten this torturing 
purgation, or release the soul from it altogether; that 
they are warranted, nay, for aught I know, com- 
manded by God, to exact money for performing these 
masses, which money is to be appropriated to their 
own use; and they countenance their people in form- 
ing societies to raise money for the purpose of pur- 
chasing masses from the most necessitous among 
themselves. I appeal to any man of common dis- 
cernment, if he ever met wiih a transaction, that bore 
fraud and imposture so legibly written on the face of 
it, as this does!" 



378 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



But does not the "holy father," as he is impiously 
called, himself occupy rather an unenviable eminence 
in this matter? The proclamation of the indul- 
gence granted at the jubilee of 1S25, commences 
thus : 

" Leo, bishop, servant of the servants of God, To all 
the faithful of Christ who shall see these presents, 
health and apostolical benediction. 

" We have resolved in virtue of the authority given 
to us by heaven, fully to unlock that sacred treasure, 
composed of the merits, sufferings and virtues of 
Christ, our Lord, and of his virgin-mother, and of all 
the saints, which the author of human salvation has 
intrusted to our dispensation. . . 

*« We proclaim that the year of atonement and par- 
don, of redemption and grace, of remission and indul- 
gences is arrived . . . during which year of the jubilee, 
we mercifully give and grant in the Lord a plenary 
indulgence.'' 

Thus does this potentate boldly assume the entire 
power to open, or to keep closed, the prison-doors of 
purgatory. It is at his behest alone, (or at least it 
is assumed to be altogether in his power to grant re- 
lease,) that so many thousands or millions of wretched 
beings are there suffering excruciating torments, 
which one word from him would terminate. Is this 
a distinction which a good man would covet? Is it 
not a responsibiUty from which any man, knowing 
his own sinfulness would revolt with horror? 

But the word of God at once sweeps away all these 
refuges of lies. "iVb 7nan can by any means redeem his 
brother, or give to God a ransom for him.^^ Psalm 
xlix. 7. The salvation proclaimed in the Scriptures 
is not a scheme devised for the special use and relief 
of the prosperous and the wealthy. On the contrary, 
it is again and again offered, and in the most explicit 
terms, to the poor and the needy. " Ho! every one 
that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that 
hath no money; come ye, buy and eat; yea, come buy 
wine and milk, without money and without price?^ 
(Isaiah Iv. 1.) Is it possible for words to be devised 



THE PARDON OF SIN. 379 

more decidedly condemnatory of the Romish system? 
" To the POOR the gospel is preached.''^ But Rome 
offers no gospel, for to the poor she has nothing to 
say. The old proverb which described her rule in 
her most palmy days, describes her practice still, ^' No 
Penny, no Paternoster." 



380 



XX.— ROMISH DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES. 



PERSECUTION. 

There is no topic in the whole course of this in- 
quiry, on which the falsehood of the Romish contro- 
versialists has been so largely displayed as this; and 
the reason is sufficiently obvious. The broad and 
notorious facts of the case are such, as to require the 
most reckless and unbhishing disregard of truth to 
evade their force. The general voice of history de- 
clares, that the believers in Jesus, the adherents to 
the faith of the Bible, have been persecuted to the 
death, and destroyed by myriads, alike by Heathens, 
Mahomedans, Romanists, and Infidels; while on the 
other hand, with the slight exceptions to which we 
shall presently allude, these Christians, when them- 
selves possessed of power, have not used the sword or 
the faggot, either to Pagan, Infidel, Mahomedan, or 
Romanist. The inference is unavoidable: as cruelty 
and persecution are from beneath, and not from above, 
it follows that Heathenism, Mahomedanism, Roman- 
ism, and Infidelity are all devices of Satan; and that 
Bible Christianity, or Protestantism, is that truth of 
God which all Satan's servants unanimously detest 
and abhor, and with which alone, true charity and 
forbearance are indissolubly connected. 

But here we are sometimes met by a reference to 
the "intolerance'^ of Moses and the prophets under 
the Old Testament; and by the question of the Ro- 
mish annotator, ^'If God gave such power to the 
church guides of the Old Testament dispensation, can 
He have given less to the church guides of the New?'' 



PERSECUTION. 3 8 1 

Let us, therefore, meet this difFiculty without hesita- 
tion. 

The main feature in this part of the case, which 
ought never to be lost sight of, is this: — The Jews, in 
the times of the Old Testament, lived under a Theo- 
cracy. Jehovah actually walked among them. The 
people heard the thunder and saw the lightning which 
heralded his steps; they heard both the awful trum- 
pet of the archangel, and God's more awful voice; 
and they felt the everlasting hills quake at his terrible 
presence. And when, after all this, and after hear- 
ing the Almighty's voice expressly forbidding any 
manner of work to be done on the Sabbath-day, a 
reckless transgressor was found openly breaking this 
command, and in God's immediate presence pouring 
contempt upon His express injunctions; what re- 
mained to be done, but to '^ stone him with, stones 
that he died?^^ So obvious is the iitness and proprie- 
ty of this proceeding, that one really feels at a loss to 
imagine what objection can be framed to it. If the 
supreme Lord and Governor condescends to speak 
audibly to a body of his creatures, after showing them 
the most wonderful mercies and kindnesses; and if 
he prescribe certain rules of living; and they, im- 
mediately after, openly violate and pour contempt 
upon his commands, even within the immediate pre- 
cincts of his visible throne, — it seems difficult to say 
what else could be done, but to put the delinquents to 
that death which they had braved. 

And the like may be said of the various acts of 
idolatry committed by the IsraeHtes. Even within 
sight of the lightnings of Sinai, and with its thunders 
echoing in their ears, they rush to disobey one of the 
most explicit of Jehovah's commands! His forbear- 
ance is such, that he does not ^'consume them as in 
a moment^'' as might well have been anticipated: 
when, however, Moses sends the sons of Levi through 
the camp, and slays at once three thousand men, who 
shall say that his wrath is other than a holy and a 
righteous indignation? 

And the same remark applies to the acts of Samuel, 
25 



382 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

of Elijah, and of others of the prophets. Wherever 
God is visibly present in his miraculous power, dwell- 
ing in one of his commissioned servants, he who 
despises and opposes that Almighty power, does so at 
his own most obvious peril; and the consequences 
are not to be attributed to the mere human agent in 
the least degree. 

But there is a vast change in the dispensation 
under which we live. God has withdrawn himself 
from the view of man, except as seen through the 
medium of his word, his works, and his providence. 
And by the common feeling of mankind, it will be at 
once perceived to be far less openly insulting, merely 
to disregard the message oi a king, than to violate his 
personal commands in his very presence. Both de- 
serve, and will receive, their just punishment; but 
instant death belongs to the personal insult; to the 
disobedience of an immediate command. 

Still greater difference, however, is there, between 
a disregard of the commands of God, whether con- 
veyed immediately, or through the medium of one of 
his servants; and disobedience to what is, after all, 
nothing more than human assumption, and unwar- 
ranted pretension. Not one syllable is there, in any 
part of God's word, touching obedience due to the 
bishop of Rome. But that bishop and his followers 
interpret certain words addressed to Peter by Christ, 
as conveying to him a supreme authority: they then 
assume that Peter was bishop of Rome: next, that 
his authority, whatever it was, descended plenarily 
to his successors in that see; and thus, by three steps, 
every one of which is disputed, they arrive at the 
conclusion, that "it is altogether necessary to salva- 
tion for every human creature to be subject to the 
Roman pontiff.''* Now nothing can be clearer than 
that this assumption rests upon a series of inferences 
and interpretations and historical deductions, the er- 
roncousness of any one of which would destroy the 
entire fabric. The doctrine is of human, not divine 

* Decree of Boniface, a. d. 1294. 



PERSECUTION. 383 

origin, for not one word of Scripture can be shown 
which even alludes to a bishop of Rome. To demand, 
then, for such an hypothesis, the sanctions which be- 
long only to a law of God, is to confound heaven and 
earth, things human with things divine. Yet how 
many myriads of God^s sincere worshippers have 
been immolated, because they could not see in the 
Bible any command which enjoined upon them, to 
be "subject to the Roman pontiff!" 

Thus much of the difference between the position 
of men under the Old Testament dispensation, and 
under the New. But in the next place we shall be 
treated with an attempt to confuse the question of the 
claim of the Church of Rome to exclusive salvation. 
Dr. Wiseman's entanglement of this matter is as fol- 
lows: 

" This is considered the harshest, the most intolera- 
ble point of the Catholic creed, touching its rule of 
faith; that we hold ourselves to have so exclusively 
possession of God's truth, as to consider all others 
essentially in error, and not to allow that through 
their belief salvation is to be obtained. 

" Upon this matter, allow me to observe, in the first 
place, that you will find it difficult to analyze, to its 
extreme consequences, the principle of any church 
professing to have a code or rule of faith, without 
finding yourselves led to the implicit maintenance of 
some such doctrine as this. When a church draws 
up a confession of faith, and commands all to submit 
to it, and proclaims that eternal punishment will reach 
all who refuse, assuredly it supposes that the teaching 
of such doctrines is essentially necessary to salvation. 
If not, what constitutes the necessity of doctrine in 
reference to the revelation from God? Our Saviour 
comes down from heaven, on purpose to teach man- 
kind; does he propose his doctrines under a penalty or 
not.^ Does he say, you may receive or reject these 
as you please? If not, is there not something incur- 
red by refusing to accept them.? Is there not the dis- 
pleasure and indignation of God? Consequently, a 
penalty is necessarily affixed to the refusal of those 



384 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

obligations, which Christ considered essential to faith. 
And the church proceeds upon the principle, that 
these doctrines are so essential, that a violation of 
God's precepts and laws is involved in the rejection 
of them, and makes every one who culpably — mind, 
culpably — rejects, and does not believe them, guilty 
of refusing what Christ died to accomplish and pro- 
pose. This is the necessary consequence to which 
-every formula of faith leads; it is essential to the exist- 
ence of every confession of faith, unless a different 
view is expressly and definitively given.''* 

Now nothing can be plainer than that it is here 
attempted to represent the Church of Rome as merely 
holding the same doctrine of exclusiveness as other 
churches. But there are two most important differ- 
ences between the Romish doctrine of exclusive salva- 
tion, and the Protestant doctrine. 

In the first place, there is no Protestant church 
which has attempted or desired to say, that salvation 
is only to be found within its pale. Such churches 
merely account themselves to be visible churches of 
Christ, constituting portions of that great catholic or 
universal church which is invisible. Just so was it in 
the times of Irenseus and of Augustine. The French 
churches or the African, in those days, could break off 
all communication with Rome, and continue alienated 
for years, and almost centuries, and yet never enter- 
tain the least idea that their salvation in any degree 
depended upon their union with the Italian see. But 
Rome plainly declares, that solely within her pale is 
safety to be found; an assertion which she could only 
be justified in making, by an express declaration of 
Scripture to that effect; a declaration which she can- 
not produce. But, 

Secondly, she differs from the Protestant churches 
in this, that while they merely limit salvation to those 
who listen to God, speaking in his word, and who 
obey his voice; she makes it absolutely essential 
to believe a multitude of things which she has added 

* Wiseman's Ninth Lecture, p. 322. 



PERSECUTION. 385 

to God's word, and which are mere human inven- 
tions. 

This distinction is most important, and accordingly 
Dr. Wiseman does his best to confuse the point. He 
says, "Our Saviour comes down from heaven, on 
purpose to teach mankind; does he propose his doc- 
trines under a penalty or not? Does he say, You 
may receive or reject these as you please? If not, is 
there not something incurred by refusing to accept 
them?" 

Unquestionably there is. But then we must ask 
another question; namely, When our Saviour came 
down from heaven, and proposed certain doctrines, 
under the most awful penalty; did he leave any au- 
thority behind him, on his departure to add other doc- 
trines under the same penalty? Even were we to con- 
cede to Dr. Wiseman as much as this, — more indeed, 
than he could ever prove, — that Christ left an execu- 
tive authority behind him, deposited with the bishop 
and church of Rome, — still it would remain to be 
proved that he left any legislative power. Or were 
we even to go still further, and to suppose a legisla- 
tive power, vested in the church, in matters of form 
and discipline, with the right of adding the penalty 
of excommunication, — there would yet remain to be 
shown, where or when a right was given, to set forth 
new doctrines, unheard of by the apostles; and to 
affix to those doctrines, so invented by men, the awful 
penalties of death in this world, and eternal fire in the 
next. 

The practical difference, then, between the Protes- 
tant and the Romanist, in the matter of exclusive sal- 
vation, is this; that the Protestant holds just the ex- 
clusive salvation which he finds in the Bible, and no 
more: to wit, that "he that believeth the gospel shall 
be saved, and he that believeth not shall be condemn- 
ed.'' He does not give way for an instant to the 
"liberal notions" of modern times, "that the sincere 
and honest man, whatever his creed may be, will be 
sure to be safe at last." He knows that it was He 
who will one day be the Judge of all men, who de- 



386 



ESSAYS ON eomanism; 



clared, that "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way 
that leadeth unto Hfe, and few there be that find it. ^^ 
And in another place, that "i/e that helieveth on the 
Son hath everlasting life; and he that helieveth not 
the Son, shall not see life: but the wrath of God 
abideth on him.'''' (John iii. 36.) The Protestant, 
therefore, following the only unerring guide, the word 
of God, holds that salvation is only to be obtained by 
a belief in the gospel. This is his "exclusive salva- 
tion;" and he holds no other. No Protestant ima- 
gines that this salvation is only to be found within the 
external pale of this or that visible church. Such 
an assumption is the distinguishing mark of Ro- 
manism. 

The church of Rome, on the other hand, has added 
to the simple terms of the gospel, '^Believe on the 
Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved^^ a mul- 
titude of other demands. She declares that whoso- 
ever does not believe that God is the author of the 
books of Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees, with all their 
falsehood and absurdity, is accursed. She declares, 
that whosoever does not believe extreme unction, 
orders, and matrimony, to be sacraments, is accursed. 
She declares, that any one who shall deny, that the 
eucharist contains, really and substantially, the body 
and blood, and soul, and divinity, of Christ, is ac- 
cursed. She declares that any one who shall say, 
that in the eucharist there remains the substance of 
bread and wine, is accursed. She declares, that any 
one who shall say, that the anointing of the sick does 
not confer grace, or remit sin, is accursed. She de- 
clares that any one who shall say, that Christ's faith- 
ful people ought to receive both species in the sacra- 
ment of the eucharist, is accursed. She declares, that 
any one who shall say, that in the mass there is not 
offered to God a true and proper sacrifice, is accursed. 
She declares, that any one who shall say, that mass 
ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tone, is accursed. 
She declares, that any one who shall say, that the 
clergy can lawfully contract marriage, is accursed. 

These, and a multitude of other matters of greater 



PERSECUTION. 



387 



or less importance, has the church of Rome chosen 
to add to its list of essential truths, and so absolutely 
to insist on implicit belief, as to send men to the stake 
in this world, and to threaten them with eternal fire 
in the next, for the slightest failure in the required 
faith. This, then, is the " exclusive salvation" of the 
church of Rome. Dr. Wiseman asks very properly, 
whether Christ did not propose his doctrines under a 
penalty; and whether that penalty is not incurred by 
a rejection of those doctrines? But he carefully for- 
gets that all these fearful demands of his church are 
not among the doctrines which Christ proposed; but 
are human inventions, to which an Italian council has 
chosen blasphemously to annex the awful sanctions 
of the Almighty power! 

So much for the real position of Protestants and 
Romanists, on this question of exclusive salvation. 
Both Dr. Milner and Dr. Wiseman would fain make 
it appear that there is no real difference between the 
parties, in this matter. But there is a difference, and 
a very great one. The Protestant system is that of a 
governor, acting for his sovereign, who, with the laws 
of the realm in his hand, carefully and strictly admin- 
isters his trust; not relaxing those laws, not adding to 
them; but punishing the guilty when necessary, yet 
always in strict obedience to the laws by which he 
rules. The Romish church, on the other hand, resem- 
bles a very different sort of governor, who, in his sove- 
reign's absence, is not content with the laws of the 
realm, but makes a number of new, arbitrary, and 
severe rules, simply on some imaginary power inhe- 
rent in himself. Now the first of these two would be 
a constitutional ruler, the second would be a tyrant. 

But this brings us to the second part of the subject, 
which concerns the arbitrary and cruel administration 
of this illegal authority by Rome. She first fabricates 
a code of oppressive laws; and then punishes with 
death all who do not yield to those laws the most im- 
plicit submission. 

Here, however, we are met by a positive denial on 
the part of the Romanists. They tell us, without 



388 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



reserve or hesitation, that persecution was a practice 
of the middle ages, Avhich has gradually given way 
before advancing civilization; that in those days Pro- 
testants persecuted as well as Papists; Calvin and 
Cranmer as well as Bonner and Gardiner; and that 
if Mary put nearly three hundred persons to death 
for Protestantism, Elizabeth executed almost as many 
for Popery. 

Let us address ourselves to the consideration of 
these rejoinders, taking each by itself, — and it will 
probably be the best course to commence with the 
last. 

Elizabeth came to the crown with an evident de- 
sire to reign in peace. " She received," says a late 
historian, "all who approached her with perfect 
frankness, and refused her countenance, even among 
the bishops, to Bonner alone." So far from estab- 
lishing, like her predecessor, an inquisition into re- 
ligious opinions, she would gladly have united, if it 
had been in her power, both Romanist and Protes- 
tant into one harmonious commonwealth. Her fault 
lay in too great a desire to conciliate the Papists. 

She began no persecution, but she herself was 
quickly persecuted from without. She was made the 
subject of no fewer than four bulls of excommunica- 
tion, — by Pms V. in 1569; by Gregory XIII. in 
1580; by Sixtus V. in 1587; and by Clement VIII. 
in 1600. And when, so recently as 1712, Pope Pius 
V. was received to the honour of saintship; the bull 
of canonization sets forth as one of his chief glories, 
"his unhesitating zeal in striking with his dread ana- 
thema the impious heretic Elizabeth, the pretended 
queen of England, as a heretic, and the favourer of 
heretics; absolving her subjects from their allegiance, 
and depriving herself of her pretended right to the 
throne of England." 

The fruit of these powerful missives was soon seen, 
in a constant succession of plots against Elizabeth's 
throne and against her life. Most of these plots were 
forged in the Vatican; and nearly all had a priest or 
priests as their prime agent or agents. One of these 



PERSECUTION. 



389 



conspiracies swelled into the Invincible Armada; an 
armament which bore the bull of the pope, and was 
provided with a plentiful supply of the instruments 
of torture. 

This continual warfare, directed against Elizabeth, 
the main support of Protestantism, by the court of 
Rome, fully accounts for the execution, during her 
long reign of more than forty years, of about two 
hundred persons for treason, of whom not quite thirty 
were priests. But the proceedings against them are 
extant, and it is clear that in every case it was for 
state crimes, and not for reUgious opinions, that they 
were called to an account. 

Now turn to her predecessor, Mary. In her short 
reign of little more than five years, one archbishop, 
four bishops, twenty-one clergymen, ^fl7/-Jive women, 
four children, and above two hundred other persons, 
were burned to death in the face of day, for their re- 
ligious opinions. 

This is the grand distinction. The sufferers under 
Elizabeth were men who went to the gallows as the 
natural and ordinary punishment, by the laws of God 
and man, of detected treason. They died for their 
deeds of wickedness. But the venerable bishops, 
and poor females and children, who were put to the 
most cruel of all deaths by Mary, died solely for their 
religious belief. "What say you to the sacrament of 
the altar?" was the most usual interrogation. And 
if a poor woman replied that she believed the bread 
to be still bread, the instant sentence was, to be burn- 
ed to death! 

So much for the parallel attempted to be establish- 
ed, between the executions for treason in the reign of 
Elizabeth, and the burnings for " heresy" in the reign 
of Mary. The two series have no more connection 
or similarity than exists between the laws of Eng- 
land and those of Algiers. 

But we are next referred, more at length, to va- 
rious executions which unquestionably did take place, 
for religious opinions, in different countries, during 



390 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

the earlier days of the Reformation. Such occur- 
rences were not frequent, but for the first genera- 
tion or two, the annals of the Reformation are un- 
questionably disfigured by them. 

Our answer is, briefly, that we do not represent the 
reformers as faultless or infallible men; and that we 
freely admit that they often fell into errors; of which 
the occurrences now adverted to form only one class. 
In fact, it would have been a stupendous miracle if a 
great number of leaders, in various countries, and 
under a great diversity of circumstances, had never 
committed an error or a crime. And this of persecu- 
tion for religious opinions, was just one of those into 
which they were obviously the most liable to fall. 

Brought up, as all of them had been, in the bosom 
of the Romish church, ideas of intolerance had been 
implanted in their minds during all their earliest 
years. Quickly, indeed, did these ideas disappear, 
but not so instantly as to prevent their producing 
some fruit. Before the true principle of responsi- 
bility for religious opinions was generally understood 
and received, some executions had taken place. But 
this circumstance is not to make us blind to the fact, 
that it was to the Reformation, and to the Reforma- 
tion alone, under God, that the rise and spread of 
truer views on this matter must be traced. Roman- 
ism, for eight or ten centuries, had been uniformly 
intolerant and persecuting. She was so to the Re- 
formers themselves, and even long after the establish- 
ment of the Reformation and the general spread of 
religious liberty, she continued to persecute. Nay, 
centuries after the Reformation, she was still a perse- 
cuting church, and a persecuting church she remains 
to this hour; only checked in her motions by the con- 
sciousness that the times forbid the open exercise of 
those principles of intolerance, which, in her clois- 
ters, she still cherishes. 

Protestantism has now been rooted in Europe for 
three centuries. Its real principles and practices are 
therefore fully known. And it will not be denied, 



PERSECUTION. 



391 



that wherever the Reformation has planted itself, 
there penal inflictions for religious opinions have 
almost entirely vanished away. 

On the other hand, Popery, from the first day of 
her full establishment, has been intolerant: she con- 
tinued intolerant for ten centuries: and she is, up to 
this moment, intolerant wherever she can venture 
with safety to follow her own inclinations. 

The Romish see began to wield a positive sove- 
reignty over the Christian world about the sixth or 
seventh centuries. But it was not till some time after, 
that her dominion was fully established, and her iron 
yoke sensibly felt. 

Yet her first advance upon Britain was marked by 
a circumstance which showed very distinctly what 
kind of rule it was that Augustine and his followers 
came to establish. The slaughter of the monks of 
Bangor gave sufficient proof that "unqualified sub- 
mission " was already demanded, and that the penalty 
of disobedience would be fearful. 

During the darkest ages of all, the ninth and tenth 
centuries, the records which remain furnish little in- 
formation as to religious opinions, or their progress, 
or repression. The Romish see itself being in the 
lowest state of degradation, when, as Cardinal Baro- 
nius tells us, "sordid and abandoned women ruled at 
Rome, and false pontiffs, their lovers, intruded into 
the chair of Peter," we can look for little else than 
mere wickedness and confusion in that quarter. But 
in the eleventh century Hildebrand restored the pope- 
dom to independence and power, and from that period 
we find it exerting that power in the most terrific per- 
secutions. 

That the doctrine and the practice of Papists had 
previously been that of entire intolerance, may be 
gathered from such facts as history furnishes. We 
find a burning of thirteen persons at one time, for 
their religious opinions at Orleans, in 1017. More 
than a century previous, for holding the doctrine of 
predestination, Godeschalcus had been sentenced to 
public flagellation and imprisonment for life. 



392 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

In 1140, Everviiiusof Steinfeld, writing to Bernard, 
gives an account of the burning of some Iieretics at 
Cologne, whose chief crime was, that " all things ob- 
served in the church, which have not been established 
by Christ himself, they call superstitious. They do 
not admit of any purgatory after death, and there- 
fore make void all prayers and oblations for the de- 
ceased." 

In 1160 the council of Oxford condemned more 
than thirty of the Waldenses, who had emigrated 
from Gascony, " consigning them," as it was hypocri- 
tically termed, " to the secular arm." Henry II. was 
lenient to them, and only ordered them to be publicly 
whipped, branded with a red-hot iron, and driven out 
of the city. As all persons were forbidden to receive 
or assist them, and it was in the winter, they soon 
perished with cold and hunger. 

About the same time Pierre de Bruys was burnt 
alive in Languedoc; and Fleury, in the south of 
France, was imprisoned and died in confinement. 

But it was now, about the close of the twelfth cen- 
tury, that, under the blessing of God, the spread of 
Scriptural truth among the Albigeois, in the south of 
France, and the Vaudois of Piedmont, became so 
considerable as to attract the notice of the holy see. 
Councils were held, in 1163, and 1179, which levelled 
anathemas against this " damnable heresy," and de- 
nounced the heretics to the especial hatred and ab- 
horrence of the faithful. And^ properly to carry 
these fulminations into execution, Innocent III. ad- 
dressed himself to Philip Augustus of France, ex- 
horting him to a crusade of extermination against 
the heretics. He promised to all who should engage 
in this religious war, the pardon of all their sins, 
and, in case of death, the glory of martyrdom, and 
the immediate possession of heaven. 

In this " holy war," which raged for nearly forty 
years, about a million of human lives were sacrificed, 
amidst circumstances of greater horror and barbarity 
than any other annals since the beginning of the world 
can furnish. 



PERSECUTION. 393 

Beziers was taken by storm in 1209. When the 
doubt occurred to the besiegers, how they should 
know the papists in the town from the heretics, — 
Arnold, the papal missionary, exclaimed, " Kill them 
all; God will know his own." The council was em- 
braced. Every soul was put to the sword. The blood 
ran in torrents down the streets. Mezerai estimates 
the slain at sixty thousand. 

Lavaur was stormed in 1211. The governor was 
hanged on a gibbet, his body thrown into a well, and 
covered with stones. Eighty gentlemen, who had 
surrendered, were put to death in cold blood. Four 
hundred of the inhabitants, who had escaped the 
general carnage, were afterwards burned alive. 

Under these inflictions, Languedoc became a de- 
sert. Its cities were burned, its inhabitants swept 
away with fire and sword. An hundred thousand Al- 
bigeois were computed to have fallen in one massacre. 

At a later day the Vaudois shared the same fate. 
Oppeda ravaged their country with unsparing fero- 
city. Twenty-four towns were ruined, and the in- 
habitants massacred. Every variety of cruelty was 
practised against Ihese unhappy people. Yet Pope 
Paul IV. conferred on the monster who had perpe- 
trated these atrocities the rank of Count Palatine, and 
the knighthood of St. John; "reckoning,'^ says Gau- 
frid, the papal historian, "the fire and sword well 
employed which extinguished Waldensianism." 

Spain followed in the same course. The inquisi- 
tion, in that country, effectually kept down the growth 
of heresy. Philip IL superintended the burning of 
as many as twenty-eight of the Spanish nobility at 
one auto dafe. Torquemada, on being made inqui- 
sitor-general, signalized his entrance on the oflice, by 
burning in one day no less than two thousand per- 
sons! And Mr. Blanco White informs us, that " from 
the most moderate calculations, founded on authen- 
tic papers and sure data, it appears that in Spain, 
between 1481 and 1809, no fewer than thirty-one 
thousand nine hundred and twelve persons had been 
burned at the stake; while two hundred and ninety- 



394 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 



one thousand four hundred and fifty, having recanted, 
were condemned to lesser punishments, involving, 
however, utter ruin and destitution!'' 

In the Low Countries, the Duke of Alva boasted 
of having put to death eighteen thousand Protestants, 
and Grotius reckons the whole number of martyrs at 
a hundred thousand. 

At Paris, in 1572, on St. Bartholomew's day, the 
tocsin tolled, at midnight, the signal of destruction. 
The carnage continued seven days. The Seine was 
covered with dead bodies, floating down its stream. 
Bossuet reckons the victims at six thousand; Davila 
at ten thousand. The king and queen personally 
superintended the massacre with great delight. Spe- 
cial messengers were despatched through the pro- 
vinces, and forty thousand more were added to the 
list of the slain. The news was received at Rome 
with unspeakable joy. The Pope went in procession 
to the church of St. Louis, to return thanks; and in- 
structed his legate to congratulate the king on the 
success of a scheme, "so long meditated, and so hap- 
pily executed, for the good of religion." 

In England, in 1605, a considerable body of Pa- 
pists, of rank and education, acting under the advice 
of a Jesuit, and in obedience to the Papal bulls, de- 
liberately planned the massacre of the king, the royal 
family, and the whole of the nobility at one blow. 
Forty years after, in Ireland, about fifty thousand 
Protestants were massacred in the course of a few 
weeks. 

Thus we see, that from the first moment of the con- 
solidation of the power of the Roman see, after emer- 
ging from the confusion of the dark ages, the apos- 
tate church has fully maintained its character, as 
"drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the 
blood of the martyrs of Jesus." So horrible a pic- 
ture of human nature; so dreadful a specimen of 
something almost resembling demoniacal possession, 
is not to be found in the whole history of man, as is 
furnished by the wars termed" religious," instigated 
by the '^Holy see." But we are sometimes told, that 



PERSECUTION. 395 

all this has passed away; that religious persecution 
was merely the common error of a half-enlightened 
age; and that now, amid the light and moderation of 
the nineteenth century, no one, whether Protestant 
or Papist, would ever dream of reviving it.* 

This is a deceit; and it can scarcely ever happen 
that the party offering such an argument, does not 
know it to be a deceit. 

Popery is now checked in her career of persecu- 
tion by a variety of causes which deprive her of her 
former power. One of these is the prevalence of infi- 
delity on the continent of Europe. The indiflerence 
and scepticism which so generally prevails on the 
continent, permits popery to exist in a moderated 
form; but it would not bear the revival of active per- 
secution. Perhaps we might more correctly say, 
that the terms of agreement between popery and infi- 
delity, for the extirpation of Christianity, are not yet 
finally agreed upon, and that, till that treaty is con- 
cluded, infidelity will not permit religious persecu- 
tion. 

But the main hinderance to the exertion of Papal 
power in the suppression oi heresy is, under God, the 
strength and power with which he has been pleased 
to endow Protestantism in the world. 

In the days of Elizabeth, her life alone seemed to 
constitute the obstacle to the complete revival of Pa- 
pal power. Hence the rage shown, and the plots 
perpetually formed against her. 

Yet France and Spain believed that she must soon 
fall. Hence they delayed not the massacre of St. Bar- 
tholomew, or the persecution of the Protestants in 
France, and the Netherlands, and Spain, on her ac- 
count. But now the case is entirely altered. England 
is the greatest power in Europe, and offers a refuge 
to the persecuted, wherever they may be. To attempt 

* The Romish doctrine of infallibility is utterly repugnant to this 
excuse. Leo X. by his bull, Exsurge Domine, condemned Luther 
for teaching that " it is contrary to the will of the Spirit to burn here- 
tics." Surely an infallible church is always enlightened 1 ! — [Am. 
Ed.] 



396 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM. 

another crusade against religious liberty on the conti- 
nent now, would only be to call forth the Protestant 
feeling of England, and to drive a body of valuable 
citizens to her shores. Hence it is that religious per- 
secution is now both inexpedient and impracticable. 

But all that Popery can do, it does. Whenever it 
can venture to do so without fear of consequences, it 
sheds blood. An auto dafe, in which a poor man was 
burned to death, took place at Valencia, in Spain, no 
longer back than the 31st of July, 1826. And when 
Dr. Buchanan was at Goa, about the year 1808, the 
inquisition in that country was in full activity. 

Between Protestantism and Popery, where both 
are genuine and sincere, there must ever subsist an 
irreconcilable feud. The only difference is, that the 
Protestant will mingle his hatred to the idolatry 
with love t6 the soul of the deluded idolater, and 
will not even wish his bodily injury. Whereas the 
Romanist will combine his bitter detestation of heresy 
with an equal abhorrence of "the heretic;" and will 
show that abhorrence, whether by the faggot or the 
pitch-fork, whenever he can find a convenient oppor- 
tunity. 



397 



XXI.— DESTINY OF ROMANISM, 



THE PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE PAPACY. 

We have heretofore dealt with the Papal system in 
detail, discussing point by point of the multifarious 
aggregate, and disproving the unscriptural and un- 
reasonable assumptions of that domineering church. 
We have reserved to the close one great argument, 
both because, to have adduced it at the opening of 
the discussion might have seemed to betoken a wish 
to close up the question, and to avoid the considera- 
tion of the several points therein contained; and also 
because, from its awful and momentous character, it 
leaves nothing to be said in addition. 

Come out of her, my people, that ye be not 
partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not 
of her plagues. 

She SHALL BE UTTERLY BURNED WITH FIRE ; FOR 
STRONG IS THE LORD GoD WHO JUDGETH HER. 

(Rev. xviii. 4, 8.) 

Protestants hold that these words refer to the 
church of Rome. If they are right in this view, then 
not another word need be said. But if they are 
wrong, or even if they have taken up this idea on 
insufficient grounds, then it is high time that their 
error should be admitted and repented of. Let us, 
then, with all seriousness, and looking up for divine 
direction, enter upon the consideration of this most 
solemn question. 

A most clear and emphatic exhortation is here 
given to God's people, to come out from some city 
called '^Babylon," and thus to save themselves from 
the terrible judgments which God purposes to bring 

26 



398 



ESSAYS ON EOMANISM : 



upon her. The main question then is, What is de- 
noted or set forth by this "city/' typically called 
Babylon? 

Some superficial or cursory readers of the pro- 
phetical parts of God's word, have supposed that the 
term "Babylon'' is synonymous with " the world," 
against which our Lord often warned his disciples. 
So that when Christ says, " If ye were of the world, 
the world would love its own; but because ye ore not 
of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, 
therefore the world hateth you ;^^ (John xv. 19.) — he 
expresses very nearly the same kind of separation 
and deadness to temporal things, which is enjoined in 
the call, " Come out of her, my peopled 

But the least consideration of the context puts an 
end to this supposition. The preceding chapter, the 
xvii/A, givesa particular description ofBabylon,which 
proves beyond all question, that under this name is 
described, not the general' mass of mankind, but a 
particular state, or power, either civil or ecclesiastical, 
which should be situated in a particular part of the 
earth, and should rule over other and subordinate do- 
minions. 

" I saw a woman sit on a scarlet-coloured beast, 
full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads 
and ten horns J^ " *^nd here is the mind which hath 
wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on 
which the woman sitteth: and there are seven kings; 
five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet 
come.^' (Rev. xvii. 3, 9, 10.) 

'^ JJnd the ten horns which thou sawest are ten 
kings, ichich have received no kingdom as yet; but 
receive power as kings one hour tvith the beastP 
(Rev. xvii. 12.) 

These few passages, selected out of many, at once 
dispose of the supposition, that "Babylon" in this 
place means only the same with "the world" in our 
Lord's own discourses. 

Babylon, then, denotes a power, civil or ecclesias- 
tical; visible in some particular part of the globe, 
and exercising there, according to the description 



PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE PAPACY. 



399 



giverij very great and extraordinary authority. The 
first question that occurs is, whether there is here 
described a civile or an ecclesiastical power? 

The answer to this will immediately occur to all 
students of prophecy. In the language of the pro- 
phetical parts of Holy Scripture, an earthly kingdom 
is usually typified by a beast; a church, or ecclesias- 
tical dominion, by a woman. 

Daniel, in his seventh chapter, sees the rise of the 
four great universal empires. They appear in the 
forms of four beasts. In his eighth chapter he has a 
particular vision of the events concerning Persia and 
Greece. Two beasts again, — a ram, and a he-goat, 
— are the symbols presented to his mind. And in 
like manner, in the chapter now under consideration, 
the 17th of Revelations, we find a beast, which, upon 
examination, we find to be the same as Daniel's 
fourth beast; but it is not this beast that is called 
"Babylon," but a woman who is seen riding upon it. 
" I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-coloured beast. ^^ 

Now a woman, as we just now observed, is the 
type constantly used to denote a church, or ecclesias- 
tical state. Perhaps it would be more correct to say, 
that while nations, or bodies of men in their natural 
state, destitute of the true knowledge of God, are 
typified under the symbols of brute beasts, or crea- 
tures with whom angelic beings, and the Lord of 
angels, can have no converse, or union, or connection; 
those communities to whom God has made himself 
known, and has graciously revealed his character and 
purposes in the gospel, are described under the form 
of reasonable beings, human beings, and female be- 
ings, because, as a man is the head of his wife, so 
Christ is the head of his church. 

Thus, throughout the prophecies, is this symbol 
always adopted. Judah, faithful to God under Hez- 
ekiah, is called, "TAe virgiUythe daughter of Zioii.^^ 
(Isa. xxxvii. 22.) The church, in her future glories 
is described as ^' Zion travailing.'^ And it is said, 
" Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad ivith her.'' " / 
will extend peace to her like ariver, and the glory of 



400 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye 
suck: ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dan- 
dled on her knees. ^^ (Isa. Ixvi. 8, 10,12.) Again it 
is said, " Thy maker is thine husband; the Lord of 
Hosts is his 7iame. The Lord hath called thee as a 
woman forsaken and grieved in spirit.'^ (Isa. liv. 
5,6.) 

In strict consistency, when Judah fell into idolatry- 
she is addressed under the figure of an adultress, and 
God says, '^ I will judge thee as women that break 
wedlock arejudged.^^ (Ezek. xvi. 38.) And this is the 
figure adopted in the passage before us. Upon the 
beast, which symbolizes a mere earthly power, there 
rides a harlot — "themother of harlots and abomina- 
tions of the earth. " The object hereby set forth evi- 
dently is, a church, or ecclesiastical body, in a state 
of apostasy, but governing, or directing, or exercis- 
ing authority, over the earthly power denoted by the 
beast. 

Having arrived at this conclusion, — from premises 
which no student of the prophetical parts of God's 
word will dispute, the next point is to ascertain, what 
particular ecclesiastical body it is that is thus pointed 
out? 

Now the last verse of the xviiM chapter seems to 
decide this: for the interpreting angel informs John, 
that " the woman which thou sawest is that great 
city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.^^ 

Now to these words the apostles obviously could 
attach but one meaning, — namely, that Rome was the 
city or power spoken of. 

So indisputable is this, that even the chief com- 
mentators of the church of Rome have all admitted, 
that the Babylon of the Apocalypse can mean nothing 
else than Rome. This is explicitly conceded by Ba- 
ronius, Bellarmine, Ribera, Malvenda, Lessius, Corne- 
lius a Lapide, Alcason, and Vega.* Dr. Walmsley, 
also, the Romish bishop, who wrote a few years back 
under the name of Pastorini, at once admits the same 

* Whiston's Essay on Revelation, P. ii. p. Ill, 112. 



PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE PAPACY. 401 

thing. These writers, however, strive to evade the 
awful conclusion, as it respects their own church, by 
arguing, that it is Rome Pagan, not Rome Papal, 
that is thus pointed out. 

Bishop Walmsley [Pastorini) says, "Thus fell 
ancient Rome like Babylon, but with this difference, 
that Babylon was never to rise again, whereas Rome, 
when the anger of God was satisfied, was designed 
to emerge from her ashes. And, though not allowed 
to recover her former temporal dominion, and splen- 
dour, and riches, nor to rise in her outward appear- 
ance scarce above the condition of a village, when 
compared with her former extent and multitude of 
people; yet, in her depressed state, she is privileged 
with a higher dignity of another kind; of being not 
only a Christian city, but the appointed head and 
centre of spiritual dominion." 

Dr. Walmsley's interpretation, then, is, — that the 
apocalyptic Babylon is Rome Pagan; that the judg- 
ments denounced against her were fulfilled by the 
sacking of Rome by the Goths and Vandals; and that 
after that infliction she was to rise from her ashes, in 
the new form of a Christian bishopric, and the head 
of spiritual dominion. 

We accept the Dr.'s admission, that Rome, and no- 
thing but Rome, can be denoted by the "Babylon" 
of the Revelation; but his supposed fulfilment of the 
prediction is altogether inadmissible. 

Rome Pagan, the Doctor says, was a bloody per- 
secutor of the saints. By this guilt she incurred the 
judgments of God, and was delivered over to the 
ravages of the Goths; but afterwards, having passed 
through this punishment, she rose to greater honour 
than before, as no longer Pagan but Christian. 

Now there never was an hypothesis which more 
completely disregarded the facts of the case. Rome 
Pagan was not sacked or ravaged by the Goths at 
all. It was not until nearly a century after she had 
become Christian, that the foot of the invader tra- 
versed her streets; and her final fall took place when 



402 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

she had been, for nearly an hundred and fifty years, 
a professedly Christian city! 

But there is another discrepancy between the fact 
and this interpretation. The woman is seen sitting 
on a beast with ten horns. These ten horns, Dr. 
Walmsley himself admits to be the ten Gothic king- 
doms which arose out of the Roman empire. The 
woman rides upon, or rules over these. How, then, 
can she be Rome Pagan, which ceased to exist when 
Constantine made the empire Christian, in a.d. 321, — 
when those ten kingdoms upon which she rides, under 
the figure of a ten-horned beast, did not even exist 
until more than two centuries after? Clearly, in 
riding upon, or ruling over the beast with ten horns, 
she is shown to be a governing power, directing and 
animating those ten kingdoms, which arose between 
the years a. d. 497, and 606, and which have con- 
tinued to exist up to the present time. 

Another fault which we might find with this inter- 
pretation is, that the symbol of a harlot is never 
applied in Scripture to simple Paganism; but always 
to an apostate church, — to a body which having been 
united to God by the profession and possession of 
the true faith, afterwards falls away from him, and 
becomes an adultress. This of itself is a fatal objec- 
tion to Dr. Walmsley's interpretation ; but the re- 
maining one is still simpler and plainer, and therefore 
more convincing. 

The Doctor says that ^^Rome, when the anger of 
God was satisfied, was designed to emerge from her 
ashes.'' Now this is in direct opposition to the very 
words of the prophecy. The angel distinctly says, 
" Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be 
thrown down, and shall be found -mo more at all.'' 
These words prove, beyond all possibility of doubt, 
both that the judgments spoken of in the prophecy 
were not realized in the sacking of Rome by the 
Goths, from which infliction that city did in a mea- 
sure recover; and also that their fulfilment is still 
future. On the whole, then, while we accept the 



PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE PAPACY. 403 

admission of Dr. Walmsley and the other commenta- 
tors of his church, that the "Babylon" of the Apoca- 
lypse is unquestionably Rome; we must pronounce 
his endeavour to show that Rome Pagan is intended, 
to have wholly failed. 

We have arrived, then, at these conclusions; — 1. 
That in the figure of a harlot, we must recognize a 
professing church, lapsed into idolatry. 2. That in 
the beast upon which she rides, we trace a mere 
earthly empire, divided into ten different powers, 
typified by horns, and all ruled and guided alike by 
the governing harlot. 3. That the marks given de- 
note Rome. And, 4. That in the apostate and idola- 
trous church of Rome, riding upon and ruling over, 
the ten kingdoms, (Rome, Ravenna, France, Spain, 
Portugal, Austria, Naples, Bavaria, &c.) the full re- 
ality of the prophetic picture is seen. 

But it will probably be asked, Do you mean to 
decide a vast controversy like this, by your interpre- 
tation of a single dark and mysterious prophecy? 
We answer, certainly not. 

What our conclusion might be, were this the only 
passage of holy writ, which seemed to threaten Rome 
with the judgments of God, we are not called upon to 
say, or even to decide for our own consciences. For 
it is not the only passage which bears this awful 
meaning, but only one out of several. 

The most highly favoured of all the Old Testament 
prophets, had a parallel view of God's purposes in 
these latter times. Daniel was warned, that when 
the ten Gothic kingdoms had been formed out of the 
Roman empire, another horn (or power) should arise 
after them, which should absorb three of their por- 
tions of territory, and should ^' speak great words 
against the Most High, and should ivear out the 
saints of the Most High, and think to change times 
and laws^^ (Dan. vii. 25.) but who should be '^ slain, 
and his body given to the burning flamed 

Here is a second witness, exactly corroborative of 
John, and wholly unintelligible, except on the hypo- 



404 



ESSAYS ON ROMANISM 



thesis, that this power that should arise, was to be 
that of the Roman see. 

But even this is not all. The greatest of all the 
apostles, the apostle of the Gentiles, with still in- 
creasing explicitness confirms the same view. He tells 
the Thessalonians, (2 Thes. ii.) that a great apostasy, 
a " falling away'^ was to be looked for; and the mani- 
festation of some dreadful apostasy, which he desig- 
nates by the strongest terms of abhorence and dread, 
— "the man of sin,*' "the son of perdition, '^ "that 
wicked one.'' 

He intimates that as soon as that which then hin- 
dered (the imperial power,) was taken out of the 
way, then "that wicked (one) should be revealed" 
or manifested. And exactly as it was thus foretold do 
we find the fact recorded in history, that quickly after 
the fall of the western empire, did the Romish see be- 
gin to assume a predominant power. 

And the apostle most explicitly describes the cha- 
racter of this apostate power. It was to be distinctly 
ecclesiastical. "He, as God, sitteth in the temple of 
God, showing himself that he is God." And we know 
that the pope is himself bodily exalted, at least once 
every year, and placed on the high altar in St. Peter's 
at Rome, for the adoration of the multitude. " His 
coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, 
and signs, and lying wonders." And what imposture 
was ever more entirely supported than is that of 
Rome, by "lying wonders?" 

The end, however, of this "son of perdition" is 
described in terms exactly agreeing with Daniel and 
John. " The Lord shall consume (him) with the spi- 
rit of his mouth, and destroy (him) with the brightness 
of his coming." (2 Thess. ii. 8.) 

Daniel had said of Christ, that " a fiery stream is- 
sued forth before him;" and "the beast was slain, 
and his body given to the burning flame." 

John describes the Lord, when coming to judge the 
beast and the false prophets, thus: — "Out of his 
mouth goeth a sharp ^word." "And the beast was 



PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE PAPACY. 



405 



taken, and the false prophet that wrought miracles be- 
fore him. These both were cast alive into a lake of 
fire burning with brimstone.'^ (Rev. xix. 15, 20.) 

Now let us endeavour to draw into our view, all 
the various prophetical marks or indications relative 
to the antichrist, the great apostasy of the latter days, 
and see what is their combined force and bearing. 

First, then, we observe, alike in Daniel, Paul, and 
John, the clear and unequivocal prediction of an an- 
tichristian power, which should appear in the latter 
days. 

"And he shall speak great words against the most 
High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, 
and think to change times and laws: and they shall 
be given into his hand.'' (Dan. vii. 25.) 

" Except there come a falling away first, and that 
man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who 
opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called 
God, or that is worshipped." (2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.) 

"And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against 
God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and 
them that dwell in heaven." (Rev. xiii. 6.) 

2. As to the time of its appearance, and its geo- 
graphic position, we learn that it was to be in the 
waning or declension of the Roman empire. 

" The fourth kingdom shall be divided; as the toes 
of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the 
kingdom shall be partly strong and partly broken." 
(Dan. ii. 41, 42.) 

"The ten horns are ten kings that shall arise; and 
another shall arise after them, and he shall be diverse 
from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And 
he shall speak great words against the most High." 
(Dan. vii. 24, 25.) 

"The mystery of iniquity doth already work; only 
he (the imperial power,) who now letteth, will let, 
until he be taken out of the way; and then shall that 
wicked be revealed." (2 Thess. ii. 7.) 

3. As to the character of this enemy. It was not to 
be that of an open opposer, but of a traitor and de- 
ceiver. 



406 ESSAYS ON ROMANISM: 

" In this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and 
a mouth speaking great things.'^ (Dan. vii. S.) " So 
that he is as God sitting in the temple of God, show- 
ing himself that he is God." " Whose coming is after 
the working of Satan, with all power and signs, and 
lying wonders.'^ (2 Thess. ii. 4, 9.) 

4. The spiritual dominion of this anti-christian 
power. 

"He shall think to change times and laws; and 
they shall be given into his hand.'' "With all de- 
ceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish." 
" God shall send them strong delusion." (2 Thess. ii. 
10, 11.) "The inhabitants of the earth have been 
drunk with the wine of her fornication." "The 
woman which thou sawest is that great city, which 
reigneth over the kings of the earth." (Rev. xvii. 
2,18.) 

5. The tyranny of this power over the saints. 
"The same horn made war with the saints and 

prevailed against them." (Dan. vii. 21.) "And it 
was given unto him to make war with the saints, and 
to overcome them." (Rev. xiii. 7.) " And I saw the 
woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and 
with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus." (Rev. xvii. 5.) 

We find, then, a power rising up in " the latter 
days," — i. e. after the breaking up of the fourth king- 
dom, — Rome; rising up, too, among the ten king- 
doms into which the Roman empire was divided; a 
spiritual power sitting in God's temple, not as an 
enemy, but in God's place, as his " vicegerent," (the 
very title assumed by the pope) — gaining a prodigi- 
ous spiritual dominion, by means of "signs and lying 
wonders;" and using that power to destroy the saints. 
Now, taking all these marks into our view, what can 
we possibly fix upon, as answering to this description, 
but the Papacy. But if the papacy be really meant, 
— as the impartial inquirer will be compelled to ad- 
mit, — then it is for the papacy that this fate is pre- 
pared, — 

" She shall be utterly burned with fire, for 
STRONG IS the Lord God who judgeth her." 



PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE PAPACY. 407 

In this conviction of the fearful termination to her 
power and to her crimes, how urgent should be our 
call upon those who, from the prejudices of education, 
or any other cause, are still lingering within the pre- 
cincts of her enchantments, to examine seriously, and 
with prayer for divine direction, their real state and 
condition; and to flee, while there is yet time, from 
the peril which surrounds them. Let them gain a 
just idea of the true standing and character of the 
church of Rome, and they will see that it is to those 
of God's people who are still slumbering in her arms, 
that the divine call is directed, — 

" Come out of her, my people, that ye be not 
partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not 

OF HER PLAGUES." 



THE END. 



THE BOARD OF PUBLICATION 



HAVE I SSUED, 

AND HAVE FOR SALE AT THEIR STORE, CORNER OF 

SEVENTH AND GEORGE STREETS, 

THE FOLLOWING WORKS : 



THE 



NOVELTY OF POPERY, 



THE ANTIQUITY 



RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS, 



PROVED BY 



SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY. 



1 Vol. 12mo. 



HISTORY 



INQUISITION, 



FROM ITS 



ESTABLISHMENT TILL THE PRESENT TIME. 



BY WILLIAM SIME. 



AUTHOR OF THE HISTORIES OF THE REFORMATION, CHRISTIAN 
CHURCH, WALDENSES, &C. 



Instruments of cruelty are in their habitation." — Gen. xlix. 



FIRST AMERICAN EDITION. 



1 Vol. 18mo. 



LECTURES 



THE POINTS IN CONTROVERSY 



ROMANISTS AND PROTESTANTS. 



HON. AND REV. B. W. NOEL, 



REV. CHARLES JERRAM, 
REV. W. F. VANCE, 
REV. HUGH m'nEILLE, 
HON. AND REV. G. T. NOEL, 



REV. J. H. STEWART, 
REV. W. MARSH, 
REV. J. W. CUNNINGHAM, 
REV. R. W. SIBTHORP. 



1 Vol. 12rao. 


















N c 



:v--",.</'.--^^"'^> 



^t. V*' 



.- V!.'- 



> -^ct. 



' tf 1 \ \\' s " ' 7 



=^*, 



^^^^'^ 



? " ,xV -f. 






■^."^. J" ^^0^ 



.^^ ^*, 



'^'^Vs^s^ 









v-^" r. 



V^-^^c/^-,•^^ 



4^ % 






<^ .' 






^^^-^ %;.,^f|^: 















'^ .<^' 






•^/?^^ 












.x^ -;> - 






#^^^ 






-^ <\ 



.;v*-^\/,-".:V"'^v 



H v- 



'<*., '.% 



-.--:/:... „^^ 






V .\ 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Onve 
Cranberry Township PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 












^OO^ 



^. -O^' /f 






•0- v" 



'^x. .-^ 



.-^ -71 



V^ "%. ^^^ 



'^Z- 






^<^%'' 






A^^" '^. 






..^^ <i-. 



A ' 






,0 o 






'^<<- 



■^\^ .N^^' 



^ \>''\-^^' 



.^^ 






^.^ 












'%. 






,.\ 






a5 -r^^ 



^.< 



-^, v-^ 










VJ^ .C,'^ *' 






LIBRARY 













( ''^'. ,'".:*'■' 



'-\'i>,\^nM 



mMim 



